ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Disaster Planning

John Mann: What assessment he has made of current arrangements for disaster planning in the UK; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: The primary responsibility for emergency planning sits with local responders. The Cabinet Office works with other Departments, devolved Administrations and emergency responders to enhance the country’s ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies.
	The whole House will want to thank the emergency services, local authorities and the Met Office, who did a brilliant job working together to prepare effectively for and respond to the effects of Monday’s storm.

John Mann: What specific mechanisms will the Minister put in place to ensure that the lessons highlighted in the forthcoming Hillsborough inquest will be incorporated in his Department’s policies and practice?

Francis Maude: When the results of that come through, we will obviously look at them urgently. It was a profoundly tragic event, and many lessons will need to be learned from it. We will look at it seriously when it emerges.

Andrew Percy: In the Minister’s initial response, he praised responders and local authorities. Will he also praise parish councils—those unpaid heroes in many of our communities—which provide emergency responses, and encourage those that do not presently do so to create and implement emergency plans?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes a really good point. A lot of the response needs to be done on an extremely local basis. Many parish councils take this seriously, with volunteers who rise to the occasion superbly—a huge amount of which happened on Sunday and Monday in preparation for and in response to the storm.

Senior Civil Service Staff (Reductions)

Kelvin Hopkins: What assessment he has made of the effect on the functioning of government of reductions in the number of senior civil service staff; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: Since April 2010, the number of senior civil servants has reduced by 16% and the senior civil service pay bill has reduced by 20%. Last year, civil servants helped to deliver more than £10 billion in efficiency savings by changing the way in which Whitehall and central Government operate. We are determined to drive even greater value for the taxpayer while continuing to provide exceptional public services.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is not the truth that Government cuts have seen many senior civil servants take early retirement, with an enormous loss of expertise and capacity, with increasing staff churn and work overloads, leading to problems like the west coast main line franchise chaos, delays in replying to Members’ correspondence and much else besides?

Francis Maude: I wish to take this opportunity to praise civil servants for the work that they have done. With a civil service that is significantly smaller than that which we inherited in May 2010, productivity has improved markedly. The civil service is delivering at least as much as it was before, with fewer people. Engagement scores have stayed high, and I want to praise them rather than run down what they do.

Bernard Jenkin: I join my right hon. Friend in commending the senior civil service for operating in the way it does. Does he agree that its capability is not enhanced by the degree of churn in the top jobs in the civil service, and what will the Government do to address that?

Francis Maude: There has been concern over a long period about senior civil servants—and not just senior civil servants—not staying in post long enough. We are seeking to address that, and I know that the leadership of the civil service takes the issue very seriously. One of the effects of moving to fixed tenure for permanent secretaries will, I suspect, be to lengthen the period they stay in post rather than, as some have feared, shorten it.

Gregory Campbell: Have the Government yet worked out when we will reach the tipping point at which reducing further the number of senior civil servants will not improve the service they provide but will impinge on it?

Francis Maude: As I say, there have been significant reductions. Productivity has improved and we believe that significantly more productivity can be gained. Current departmental plans show a continued reduction in the size of the civil service through to May 2015. We are finding different ways of doing things better with fewer people and at lower cost.

Richard Fuller: Is it not absolutely right that the effectiveness of public services is more important than the number of civil servants who are
	employed? What measures is my right hon. Friend taking to measure the productivity of civil servants so they can no longer be a drag on our economy, but enhance it?

Francis Maude: At is best, the civil service is not a drag on the economy; it is an important component of the economy working successfully. The leadership of the civil service identified significant deficiencies in capability, which are now being addressed. Frankly, they had been left unaddressed for far too long. Urgent action is now being taken and we need to drive it through.

National Citizen Service

Nick de Bois: What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

Stephen Mosley: What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

Nick Hurd: The National Citizen Service is growing fast and is proving enormously popular with young people. The research shows clearly that it helps to develop life skills that employers value, and that for every £1 of public money we invest, society is receiving £3 of value back.

Nick de Bois: I thank the Minister for that answer. I was privileged to attend a challenge network campaign day in my constituency, where social action projects were put into effective and lasting programmes across the constituency. What steps will the Minister take to roll out the National Citizen Service further and expand it, and will he join me in congratulating the efforts of Enfield youngsters?

Nick Hurd: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Enfield youngsters and all youngsters across the country who have participated in the National Citizen Service on their efforts. He may be interested to know that to date the young people have contributed more than 1 million hours of their time to volunteer and do good work in communities. They get a huge amount out of that process, which is why we are ambitious to grow it and have said that we will make at least 90,000 places available next year.

Stephen Mosley: Over the summer, I was delighted to see the excellent work of the National Citizen Service team in Chester, who were redecorating Blacon young people’s project. Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of the monetary value of the work that NCS volunteers do for their local communities?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for the keen interest he has shown in the NCS, and many other hon. Members who took the time to visit programmes over the summer. As I said, young people have to date contributed more than 1 million hours of their time to do good work in their communities. Part of the calculation of £3 back for every £1 we spend is the value attached to the voluntary time they are giving. The other part is their increased employability, which reflects the life and work skills they are gathering through participation.

Paul Flynn: Is the National Citizen Service not heading for that same graveyard of three-word prime ministerial gimmicks like back to basics, the third way, the citizens charter, the cones hotline and the big society?

Nick Hurd: Not for the first time, I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. NSC is proving its value across communities. Many Opposition Members visited the programme over the summer and Opposition Front Benchers have nice words to say about it. We are determined to embed it in the youth sector and for it to be part of the landscape of programmes that try to help young people achieve their full potential. We are extremely proud of it. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was gesticulating as though he was training to be an opera singer. I have no idea why, but let us hear from the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Graham: The gesture was one of frustration and disappointment that some Opposition Members do not seem to understand how valuable the National Citizen Service is. Does my hon. Friend agree that what Gloucestershire college has been doing in my constituency to help people on to this wonderful course, which it is now replicating with a mini course for the new sixth form at the Gloucester academy, is an example of how the NCS can spread into the school curriculum too?

Nick Hurd: I could not agree more, in sharp contrast to my response to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend in Gloucester to see in practice what he is talking about. The NCS is growing fast. We are seeing schools and colleges embrace it precisely because they see the value to their pupils of participating in a programme that helps young people develop the confidence, self-esteem and skills that will be valuable to them in life.

Andrew Gwynne: But can the Minister confirm that Serco has cut the funding it makes available to charities under the National Citizen Service? What impact does the Minister think that will have on the charities delivering this important initiative?

Nick Hurd: Serco leads a consortium that includes many large and small charities. It is an important provider. We manage our providers very carefully, and when there are signs of underperformance, we take action to protect the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman would not know anything about that because he represents a party that over time has not represented the taxpayer sufficiently. In the case of Serco and that consortium, we took action to protect the taxpayer, and I am proud of that.

Lisa Nandy: Last year, 6,000 places on the NCS summer scheme went unfilled, while youth services, which provided continuity, stability and a lifeline for many young people, disappeared. With one in three organisations that provide youth services facing closure, what has the Minister got to say to those young people?

Nick Hurd: First, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion. I think she is the fifth shadow Minister I have faced across this Dispatch Box, and I hope she enjoys her time.
	There is a serious point about cuts to local youth services by local authorities. We have taken over responsibility for youth policy and want to engage with local authorities to try and protect and enhance those services, but the hon. Lady misses a fundamental point about the NCS: it funds grass-roots youth organisations across the country to work with young people throughout the year—spring, summer and autumn—and therefore it is part of the solution.

Cyber-Security

Julian Smith: What progress his Department has made on the cyber-security programme.

Francis Maude: We have committed an additional £210 million to the national cyber-security programme for 2015-16, underlining our commitment to tackling cyber threats. This year, we have launched the cyber-security information-sharing partnership and increased specialist capability in police forces, and we are currently setting up UKCERT, the national computer emergency response team.

Julian Smith: Following the Snowden leaks in the US, where a contractor working for Booz Allen was able to cause untold damage to US and international intelligence services, what steps is the Minister taking to put in place restrictions on contractors and staff vis-à-vis access to this programme?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this matter and made some extremely robust and helpful comments. We take contractor security extremely seriously, and following this breach, which took place in the United States, we are obviously redoubling our efforts to ensure that it is as secure as it can be.

Paul Farrelly: When assessing the leaks from Edward Snowden and the reporting by newspapers, including The Guardian, will the Minister and the Government take clear account of the statement from President Barack Obama last week that some of the activities of the National Security Agency in the US raised legitimate questions for friends and allies?

Francis Maude: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would just like to make this point about GCHQ: it comprises very, very dedicated, hard-working Crown servants who do incredibly valuable work to protect our safety and security every day of the week, and they deserve solid support from right across the Chamber and from both Front Benches. I hope that that will be made absolutely clear.

Julian Huppert: The Government are rightly trying to tighten up on British cyber-security. Does the Minister share my concern that anybody who weakens encryption methods or puts in back doors exposes us all to greater risk?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable on this subject, and everything he says about it must be taken extremely seriously. Yes, there is a point there to which we need to have proper regard.

Chi Onwurah: According to the Government’s own figures, 87% of small businesses experienced a cyber-security breach last year and were attacked, on average, 17 times, yet more than four fifths of the Government’s cyber-security budget goes on the intelligence services, big business and government, leaving small businesses and consumers to fend for themselves. Now we learn that the Minister has set up his own wi-fi network in the Cabinet Office to bypass all that expensive security. When will he stand up for small businesses and consumers and get a grip on cyber-security?

Francis Maude: I am glad to say that the most recent rankings of countries in relation to cyber-security had the UK in top position, but we are not at all complacent; much more needs to be done. The hon. Lady is very interested in the wi-fi arrangements in my office, which were installed by the Cabinet Office IT supplier and are fully compliant. We take all this extremely seriously, but the threats are changing all the time and we need to be agile in how we respond to them.

Post Office

Alan Reid: What recent discussions he has held with his ministerial colleagues on the use of the Post Office as a front office for Government services.

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Post Office already delivers a number of valuable front-line services for the Government, and it has proved successful in competing for contracts. The Cabinet Office’s engagement at the moment involves conversations about how the Post Office and others might help us to give better support to citizens who are not yet online.

Alan Reid: The Minister is correct: the Post Office already delivers a lot of Government services. It has the technology to enable it to back up the Government’s digital agenda and to be the front office for the Government. For example, people without internet access could make universal credit applications through it. Post offices are at the heart of our communities, and I urge the Minister to encourage all Government Departments to make more use of the Post Office.

Nick Hurd: I hear that message loud and clear. We are engaging with the Post Office and a number of suppliers about how they can help us with our agenda of encouraging more of our citizens to get online and become digitally capable—and to access Government services online, because that is the direction of travel that we are taking—as well as with the assisted digital programme, which will ensure that none of our citizens is left behind in that process.

Brian H Donohoe: One area of business that was taken from the post offices some time ago was the issuing of TV licences. Has the
	Minister had any discussions with his ministerial contacts about bringing that service back to the post offices? Many old people still do not have access to the internet.

Nick Hurd: As I have said, our conversation with the Post Office is about the broad agenda of digital by default, and about how we can get more of our citizens online. Some 11 million of them are estimated still to be offline, so that is a big challenge. Alongside that, programmes are necessary to ensure that people who do not want to be online can still access Government digital services. I am sure that the Post Office and others will be able to help us in that process.

Hywel Williams: Is the Minister aware that the National Federation of SubPostmasters has reported that the income generated by the Government services that its members provide is fairly small? I am all in favour of sub-post offices providing Government services, but the Government must surely be made to pay for that properly.

Nick Hurd: Obviously, if post offices are going to provide a service, they need to have the capacity to do that. I have had conversations with postmasters in my area. In the Pinner post office, for example, I have tried out the new technology that is helping citizens to get online and access services locally and to become more digitally capable, and I did not get a sense from that postmaster that there was a problem.

Procurement (SMEs)

William Bain: What recent steps he has taken to reduce barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises participating in Government procurement.

Nick Hurd: This Government remain extremely committed to the process of trying to increase the participation of SMEs in central Government procurement, and we believe that at least an additional £1.5 billion has flowed into the SME sector through that process since 2010. That represents progress, but we know that there is still a lot to do.

William Bain: The Minister has just claimed that direct spend with SMEs has increased since the last election, but will he confirm that the recorded rise in the Ministry of Justice since April 2011 is in fact down to his officials, including law firms, offering legal aid services? When is he going to correct those figures to remove that inaccuracy?

Nick Hurd: I am not going to take any lessons from the party opposite. What we inherited in terms of SMEs participating in public procurement was no ambition and no data. This Government are supplying the ambition and trying to ensure that the data are as good as they can be. We are not taking any lectures from the party that had no ambition and no data.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to support small businesses, but will he look at the systems in which small businesses are sometimes unable to bid? And may I see him after this Question Time to tell him precisely what I mean by that?

Nick Hurd: I am very glad to hear that extension to my hon. Friend’s question, and I certainly accept his invitation. We are absolutely determined to try to remove the barriers to small business participation. For example, we have recently announced the fourth supplier framework for the procurement of Government cloud technology services, and I am delighted to tell him that 84% of those suppliers are SMEs. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. That is unfair on the Members asking questions and on the Ministers who are trying to make their answers heard.
	Topical Questions

Tom Blenkinsop: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities as Minister for the Cabinet Office are for the public sector efficiency and reform group, civil services issues, industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.

Tom Blenkinsop: Last Friday afternoon, the Cabinet Office snuck out details about special advisers, showing that there are more of them and that their cost has risen by more than £1 million last year. At a time when the Government are demanding cuts and claiming that they are necessary, is it right that such profligate spending by the Cabinet Office on special advisers is allowed to go uncontrolled?

Francis Maude: The requirements of a coalition Government mean that there is more requirement for special advisers. Their cost is still only 2% of the cost of the senior civil service.

Iain Stewart: What outcomes does my right hon. Friend hope to see from the Open Government Partnership summit being held in London tomorrow?

Francis Maude: We are looking forward to welcoming to London the representatives of 62 Governments who have chosen to belong to this unique partnership both between Governments and with civil society organisations. Transparency is an idea whose time has come, and we will celebrate the progression of the open data and transparency agenda over these two days.

Michael Dugher: Last Friday afternoon, the Cabinet Office finally released some information, but the Government failed yet again to release the Prime Minister’s annual Chequers guest list, which has not now been published since July 2011—an interesting definition of “annual”. This follows repeated failures adequately to answer parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests about visits to No. 10 by the Prime Minister’s adviser, Lynton Crosby—despite the Government answering exactly the same questions about other individuals in other Departments. When are the Government going to release this information, including about that cigarette lobbyist running around at the heart of Downing street?

Francis Maude: I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman was in residence in No. 10 Downing street in the last Government—when the degree of transparency was virtually nil—it would never have been disclosed, as it will be, that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) was at Chequers helping the then Prime Minister to plant a tree.

Dominic Raab: This time last year, Ministers announced a radical overhaul of facility time. With Royal Mail, teacher and fire brigade strikes inflicting disruption on the public and with the appalling behaviour of Len McCluskey in Grangemouth, FOI data I have received show that the overall public subsidy from Whitehall to the unions has gone up, not down. What further action is my right hon. Friend taking?

Francis Maude: The events at Grangemouth illustrate the problems that can arise when full-time union officials are paid for by the employer. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the number of full-time union officials on the civil service payroll has halved and that the cost has more than halved.

Pamela Nash: In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the Minister said that he took very seriously the threat of cybercrime to small and medium-sized businesses. However, cybercrime has cost SMEs £800 million in the last year, yet the Government are giving only £5 million to spend on it across the board. What are the Government doing to tackle that problem?

Francis Maude: I accept that awareness of cyber-threats by all businesses is still too low. As the rankings show, the threat is higher in Britain than it is in most countries, but awareness is not good enough and too many businesses have left themselves vulnerable. We are working hard to raise their awareness. My right hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are leading that work, but there is much more that we can and should do.

Mr Speaker: I call David Ruffley—not here.

Peter Bone: Will the Government support my private Member’s Bill on 29 November, which is intended to give charitable status to religious institutions? Will they support it?

Nick Hurd: I have already told my hon. Friend that we will not. I understand that there is a lot of concern on both sides of the House about the Plymouth Brethren case, on which we all united in wanting to see a quick and speedy resolution to that issue.

Diana Johnson: The coalition agreement pledged to limit the number of SpAds—special advisers. Given that the number has risen to 97, what limit do the Government actually want?

Francis Maude: There is a limit, and we announced it last week. However, it will be subject to change from time to time.

Karl McCartney: When my right hon. Friend came to office in 2010, what cross-Government work had been done to tackle fraud, error and debt?

Francis Maude: None. I now chair a cross-Government taskforce on fraud, error and uncollected debt, as a result of which, in the last year, we saved the taxpayer £6.5 billion that would otherwise have been wasted.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Sheryll Murray: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 October.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Sheryll Murray: Under this Government, there are more than 1 million new jobs. That has happened with the help of companies such as Lantoom Quarry in South East Cornwall, which is investing in and training young people. We were told that the Government had a programme that would clearly lead to the disappearance of a million jobs. Is it not time for the Opposition, who said that, to admit that they were wrong and to apologise?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The British economy is on the mend. We see unemployment coming down and the number of people in work going up, and our growth rate is now forecast to be almost three times as fast as the German growth rate. The Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition told us that we would lose a million jobs, but the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely wrong, and it is time that he got to his feet and told us that he was wrong.

Edward Miliband: Having listened to the Select Committee hearing yesterday, will the Prime Minister tell us what is the difference between his—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say to the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary that his role is to nod his head in the appropriate places, and to fetch and carry notes? No noise is required.

Edward Miliband: Having listened to the Select Committee hearing yesterday, can the Prime Minister tell us what is the difference between his policy on energy and that of the energy companies?

David Cameron: Not a word of apology for predicting that a million jobs would be lost! The Opposition got it wrong, and they cannot bear to admit it. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The questions must be heard and the answers must be heard, however long it takes. Some people need to get used to the fact that that is what the public would like to see from the House of Commons.

David Cameron: What we need in the energy market is more competition and lower levies and charges to drive profits and prices down, but what we have learnt in the last week is this: competition should include switching. At the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	“I will tell the Prime Minister what is a con: telling people…that the answer was to switch suppliers”.—[Official Report, 23 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 295.]
	However, what have we found out over the last few days? The right hon. Gentleman switched his supplier. Yes—he went for one of these insurgent companies to cut his bills. Is it not typical? The right hon. Gentleman comes here every week and attacks Tory policy; then he goes home and adopts Tory policy to help his own family.

Edward Miliband: The only thing that people need to do if they want someone to stand up against the energy companies is to switch the Prime Minister, and that is what they know.
	Perhaps, as the unofficial spokesman for the energy companies, the Prime Minister can answer the question that they could not answer yesterday. Can he explain why, although wholesale prices have hardly moved since a year ago, retail prices are rising by about 10%?

David Cameron: Because we need both competition and rolling back the costs of charges. Switching is part of competition and the company the right hon. Gentleman switched to has this to say about his energy freeze. Let us listen to the people providing his energy:
	“A policy like this is potentially…problematic for an independent provider…bluntly, it could put me under.”
	That is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy: not listening to the people providing his energy, but having less choice, less competition, higher prices. It is the same old Labour.

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman had no answer to the question, and I will explain something quite simple to him: most energy companies do not want a price freeze and most consumers do. That is why the energy companies are against a price freeze. He is so on the side of the energy companies that we should call them the big seven: the Prime Minister and the big six energy companies. In Opposition, he said there was a problem in the relationship between wholesale and retail prices, and he went on to say, “The first thing you’ve got to do is give the regulator the teeth to order that those reductions are made and that is what we would do.” Why when it comes to the energy companies has he gone from Rambo to Bambi in four short years?

David Cameron: Who was it who gave us the big six? [Interruption.] Yes, when Labour first looked at this there were almost 20 companies, but, because of the right hon. Gentleman’s stewardship, we ended up with six players. The Opposition talk about a price freeze but down the Corridor they have been voting for a price rise. That is right: they voted for a decarbonisation target that everyone accepts would raise prices. If he wants a price freeze, why has he just voted for a price rise?

Edward Miliband: It is just so hard to keep up with this Prime Minister on green levies. This is what he was saying in January: believe it or not, he was boasting about the size of his green levies. He said—I kid you not: “ECO was many times the size of the scheme it replaced.” So when it comes to green, as short a time ago as January he was saying the bigger the better, and now he says the opposite. Here is the problem: on competition—[Interruption.] Here is the problem: he wants a review of energy policy, but that is exactly what the energy companies want—a long inquiry, kicking the problem into the long grass. How will a review that reports next summer help people pay their bills this winter?

David Cameron: We want a competition inquiry that starts straight away: that is our policy. On the point about voting for a price rise, the right hon. Gentleman has to answer, because this is what the former Labour energy spokesman Lord Donoughue said in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to this because Lord Donoughue was their energy spokesman:
	“I have never spoken against a Labour amendment in my 28 years in this House, but…I am troubled by the consequence…for ordinary people…The amendment will…raise the cost of living and is in conflict with a future price freeze.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. 1357-1359.]
	That is it from Labour’s own policy spokesman in the past in the Lords. The fact is that the whole country can see that the right hon. Gentleman is a one-trick pony and he has run out of road.

Edward Miliband: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about what people are saying—[Interruption.] If he wants to talk about—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members should try to recover some semblance of calm. It would be good for their health and beneficial for their well-being. They must try to grow up, even after the age of 60.

Edward Miliband: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about what people are saying, his own former Tory Environment Secretary, the man he put in charge of the Climate Change Committee, says his figures are false. That is what he says. Instead of having a review, the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to do something for the public next week. He has an Energy Bill going through Parliament. Instead of sitting on his hands, he could amend that Bill to institute a price freeze now. We will support a price freeze: why does he not act?

David Cameron: Because it is not a price freeze—it is a price con. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is hiding behind this economically illiterate policy because he cannot talk about the economy, because it is growing; he cannot talk about unemployment, because it is falling; and he cannot talk about the deficit, because it has come down. He has got nothing else to say. He is just a weak leader with no ideas.

Edward Miliband: I will tell you who is weak—it is this Prime Minister. He is too weak to stand up to the energy companies. Nothing less than a price freeze will do, because that is the only way we can deal with the energy companies overcharging. It is time he started acting like a Prime Minister and standing up for consumers, and stopped acting like a PR man for the energy companies.

David Cameron: I will tell you what is weak: being too weak to stand up and admit to economic failures; being too weak to stand up to Len McCluskey, who tried to wreck Scotland’s petrochemical industry; and being too weak to stand up to the shadow Chancellor on HS2—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Gwynne, recover your composure man. You are wholly out of control.

David Cameron: Let us just examine what has happened on HS2 this week: the shadow Chancellor has been touring the radio studios, telling everyone it will not go ahead; and Labour local authority leaders have been begging the Leader of the Opposition to stand up for this infrastructure scheme. And what has he done? He has cowered in his office, too weak to make a decision. To put it another way: Britain deserves better than that lot.

Michael Ellis: Last year, businesses created three times as many jobs in the private sector as were lost in the public sector. So is it not high time that those who made duff mystic predictions that we would not be able to create as many private jobs as were lost in the public sector admit that they got it wrong?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Opposition should admit they got it wrong. Let us just remember what the Leader of the Opposition said as late as March 2012. He said that we were not going to be able to replace the jobs in the public sector quickly enough with jobs in the private sector. The fact is that we have now got 1 million more people employed in our country—1.4 million private sector jobs—but the Opposition are too weak to admit that they got it wrong.

Gavin Shuker: Does the Prime Minister believe that the accident and emergency crisis in the NHS has anything to do with the fact that he has cut 6,000 nurses since coming to power?

David Cameron: What we see in the NHS is 23,000 fewer non-clinical grades—bureaucrats and managers taken out of the NHS—and 4,000 more clinical staff, including over 5,000 more doctors in our NHS. That is the change we have seen. Just imagine if we had listened to Labour and cut the NHS budget. We believe in the NHS and we have invested in it.

Caroline Nokes: Hampshire chamber of commerce reports, in the last quarterly economic survey, real business optimism, with a rise in the number of local firms employing more staff, an increase in UK orders and a 10% increase in sales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is evidence that the Government’s economic plan is working and that the Labour party got it wrong?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right; we had to take tough decisions, but growth is there, unemployment is falling, the number of people in work is rising and we have 400,000 more businesses in this country. If we had
	listened to the shadow Chancellor, who said that we were in for a “lost decade” of growth, we would have higher debts and higher interest rates—it would be the same old outcome under the same old Labour.

Yvonne Fovargue: In a recent uSwitch survey, 75% of people said that they switched their heating off on one or more occasions last winter. Does the Prime Minister expect that number to go up or down this winter due to his inability to stand up to the energy companies?

David Cameron: Fuel poverty went up under Labour. This Government have maintained the winter fuel payments; we have increased the cold weather payments; and we have increased the benefits that the poorest families get in our country. That is the action that we have taken, and we can afford to do that only because we have taken tough and sensible decisions on the economy.

Andrew Jones: A few days ago, I launched the business case for the electrification of the Harrogate and Knaresborough rail line, which will mean more trains, faster services and better rolling stock. As the previous Government electrified just 9 miles in 13 years, will my right hon. Friend continue to prioritise rail electrification?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The previous Government did just 9 miles of electrification in 13 years, an absolutely pathetic record, whereas we are putting £1 billion into modernising railways in the north of England. Let us look again at HS2: we all know we need cross-party agreement to make that important infrastructure scheme go ahead. What a pathetic spectacle we have seen this week. One minute the Opposition are for it, then they are against it, and the Leader of the Opposition is too weak to make a decision.

Stephen Doughty: I have come across a very interesting interview given by the Prime Minister to The Times, during which he had to stop off at his constituency office as, in his words, he needed
	“to turn the heating on just so it’s a bit nicer when I get back this afternoon”.
	How many of my constituents does he think will be able to afford such niceties as we approach this winter?

David Cameron: What the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will understand is that Labour’s price freeze is a price con. Prices would go up beforehand, prices would go up afterwards and as the Leader of the Opposition himself has admitted, Labour would not be able to keep its promise because it does not control gas prices. That is why everyone knows that it is a con.

Simon Hart: My 20-year-old constituent Liam Burgess, from Llansteffan in Carmarthen, left school involuntarily at 16 and was told that the only choice ahead of him was in which prison he might end up. Four years later, he runs and owns one of Wales’s best chocolate brands, nomnom. Does the Prime Minister agree that the record number of new business
	start-ups and the positive economic signs are as much down to people such as Liam Burgess as they are to the excellent work of the Chancellor?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituent for how he has turned his life around and is contributing to our economy. We see 400,000 more businesses up and running in our country—[Interruption.] Of course Labour Members do not want to hear about success stories. They do not care about enterprise; they do not care about small businesses. It is this enterprise and this small business that are turning our country around.

Emily Thornberry: A new flat has just been launched in my constituency, which has been built partly as a result of public money under the Government’s affordable housing scheme, known as Share to Buy. It is a two-bedroom flat in Pear Tree court and it costs £720,000. Does the Prime Minister believe that to be affordable and, if so, to whom?

David Cameron: We need to build more houses in our country and that is why we are reforming the planning system, which Labour opposed, why we have introduced Help to Buy, which Labour opposed, and why we have put extra money into affordable housing, which Labour opposed. Labour is now the “build absolutely nothing anywhere” party and as a result housing will become less affordable.

Paul Uppal: Over the past few decades, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in India and China. As those people have increased their living standards, their energy demands have increased, too. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to have sustainable, long-term and cheap energy, the innovative deal that the Chancellor heralded a few weeks ago through the Chinese initiative is crucial and much better than short-term political gimmicks?

David Cameron: That was an important step forward in encouraging inward investment into our country to help fund our nuclear programme. That means that we will have dependable supplies of low-carbon electricity long into the future. People might oppose foreign investment—it sounds now like the Labour party opposes foreign investment and with all the flip-flops the Opposition have done this week, I would not be at all surprised if they did not start to oppose nuclear energy, too—but getting that foreign investment means that we can use our firepower to build hospitals, to build schools, to build roads and railways and modernise our country.

Katy Clark: Does the Prime Minister believe that Royal Mail was undervalued?

David Cameron: Considering that Royal Mail in the past was losing billions of pounds, the whole country is far better off with Royal Mail in the private sector. I just talked about flip-flops and here is another from the Labour party. Who said that we needed to privatise Royal Mail in the first place? Anyone? Where is Peter Mandelson when you need him? Labour said that we
	needed private capital—I agree; they said we needed private management—I agree. It has taken this Government to deliver the policy.

Robin Walker: With 1.5 million jobs created by business and 400,000 new businesses, last month’s figures in Worcestershire showed the biggest monthly fall in unemployment on record. Unemployment is now down more than 30% since its peak under Labour. Does the Prime Minister agree that by backing business and supporting businesses to grow, we can undo Labour’s legacy of unemployment?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whoever was in government right now would have to make difficult reductions in the public sector, and obviously that leads to the reduction of some public sector jobs, so we need a strong private sector recovery. That is what we have seen—1.4 million more jobs in the private sector, meaning that overall there are 1 million more people employed in our country. That is 1 million reasons to stick to our plan and reject the medicine suggested by the Opposition.

Jim Sheridan: Current legislation to protect agency workers was designed to stop the exploitation of migrant workers and also to protect the wages and conditions of our indigenous workers. I know that the Prime Minister has been lobbied on this issue, but can he reassure the House that he will resist any temptation to dilute even further the protection for agency workers?

David Cameron: What I want to see are more jobs in this country, and that means making sure we keep our flexible work force. What the hon. Gentleman did not tell us, of course, is that he chairs the Unite group of Labour MPs. Perhaps he ought to declare that when he stands up. While he is at it, perhaps he could have a word with Mr McCluskey and say that we need a proper inquiry into what happened in Unite and a proper inquiry into what happened in Grangemouth, because we all know that the leader of the Labour party is too weak to do it himself.

Duncan Hames: The economy has grown 1.5% in the past six months, during which time in the Chippenham constituency the number of jobseekers has fallen by a fifth. Raising living standards requires greater productivity from a work force who are highly skilled, but in Chippenham hopes were dashed five years ago when the national college building programme ran out of money. Will the Prime Minister join me in backing Wiltshire college’s bid to the Skills Funding Agency to rebuild our Chippenham campus to make it fit for local students to gain the skills that employers demand?

David Cameron: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says. We all remember the huge disappointment when Labour’s planned investment in so many of our colleges collapsed. I saw exactly the same thing at Abingdon and Witney college, and it is this Government who are now putting the money in to see that expansion and improvement and to put quality colleges in place. I am sure that that can happen in Wiltshire as well as in Witney.

Peter Hain: Since two thirds of the green levies on people’s energy bills were established under this Government, why has the Prime Minister been attacking himself?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. [Interruption.] The fact is that many of the green levies were put in place by Labour. Let me remind him that one of the first acts of this Government was with the £179 renewable heat initiative, which the leader of the Labour party wanted to put on the bill of every single person in the country—and we took it off the bill.

Heather Wheeler: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the work force at Toyota in my constituency, as well as manufacturers across the country, whose hard work has ensured that car production went up by 10% in the past year?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend. I remember my own visit to Burnaston in Derby—[Interruption.] Again, Opposition Members do not want to hear good news about manufacturing. They do not want to hear good news about our car industry. The fact is that this country is now a net exporter of cars again and we should be congratulating the work force at Toyota. We should be congratulating the work force at Jaguar Land Rover. We should be praising what they are doing at Nissan. These companies are leading a re-industrialisation of our country. I was at the Cowley works on Monday, where the Mini, which is doing brilliantly, is leading to more jobs, more apprenticeships, more employment, more skills—all things that we welcome under this Government.

Natascha Engel: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for launching our report on electoral conduct yesterday, which found some shocking examples of racism and discrimination during election campaigns. Will the Prime Minister back our call to get political parties, the Electoral Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to work more pro-actively now in areas of tension so that the next general election can be a battle of ideas, not race hate and discrimination?

David Cameron: I very much welcome what the hon. Lady says and the report of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into electoral conduct, which I will study closely. If there is anything we can do on a cross-party basis to ensure that we keep that sort of disgusting racism out of politics, we should certainly do it.

Andrew Stephenson: Thanks to the Government’s regional growth fund, £8.8 million is being spent reopening the Todmorden curve rail link, which will cut travel times between Burnley and Manchester in half. However, better rail connections to the south of England are also vital. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is absolutely outrageous for the Labour party to be challenging HS2 at the present time, putting in jeopardy jobs and investment in the north of England?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stand up for his constituents and for the north of England, because there is a real danger with Labour’s
	antics that it is letting down the north of England and the midlands. Let me remind the shadow Chancellor what he said about these transport investments:
	“Nowhere is…consensus more essential than on our national infrastructure…successive governments…have ducked or delayed vital decisions on our national infrastructure, allowing short-term politics to”
	get in the way. By his own words, he is found guilty of short-termism and petty politicking, rather than looking after the national interest.

Si�n James: I am surprised that the Prime Minister, along with the Justice Secretary, is prepared is gamble on his proposals for the probation service, especially given that the early tests and trials have been called to a halt. Is he prepared to gamble with the lives and daily safety of my constituents and others in this country, and will his gambling luck hold out?

David Cameron: What we want is a probation service that is much more focused on getting results on stopping reoffending and making sure that we give people rehabilitation services from the moment they leave prison, which does not happen today.
	It is interesting that at 26 minutes past 12 we have not heard one question from Labour Members on the economy. They have nothing to say and nothing to offer. They are embarrassed that prediction after prediction was completely wrong.

Lee Scott: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question must and will be heard.

Lee Scott: Like my right hon. Friend, I welcome the fall in unemployment, which is down to 3.7 % in my constituency, but does he recognise, as I do, that one of the biggest problems is getting young people with special needs, particularly autism and Asperger’s, into work, and will he congratulate the London borough of Redbridge and the Interface parents group, where the project I initiated has now started and the first young people with special needs are in work?

David Cameron: I know of my hon. Friend’s close attention to this issue and his deep care about it. I certainly pay tribute to Redbridge and all those who help children with special needs. Through our reform of special needs, we have tried to focus the help on those who need it most to ensure that they get the help they need.

Lucy Powell: I have a question on the economy for the Prime Minister. Does he agree with his own advisers that the Government’s Youth Contract is failing to tackle
	“the appallingly high levels of youth unemployment”?

David Cameron: What we have seen with the Youth Contract is thousands of young people getting work through our work experience scheme. It has been more successful than the future jobs fund but has cost six times less. Through the Youth Contract we have also seen more than 20,000 young people get work opportunities. That is why we see the youth claimant count coming down so rapidly in our country. There is
	still far more to do to get young people into work, but the fact that we have backed more than 1.5 million apprenticeships is a sign of how much we care about getting young people into work.

Julian Huppert: Does the Prime Minister agree with President Obama that additional constraints on how we gather and use intelligence are needed and that we need to weigh the risks and rewards of our activities more effectively? Will he follow the President’s lead?

David Cameron: What I have said in the House and will repeat again is that obviously we will always listen to what other countries have to say about these issues, but I believe that in Britain we have a good way of having intelligence and security services, having them overseen by a parliamentary Committee, having their work examined by intelligence commissioners, and ensuring that they act under a proper legal basis. I take those responsibilities very seriously, but I believe we have a good system in this country and we can be proud of the people who work in it and of those who oversee it.

David Anderson: We have recently learned that energy security in this country is being outsourced to the Chinese and the French, that the lights may go out, that pensioners will freeze this year, and that we have no control over the big six. Does the Prime Minister have any regrets about the cack-handed privatisation of the utilities by the former Tory Government and the decimation of the most technically advanced coal industry in the world?

David Cameron: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman in terms of energy security is that he backed a Government who in 13 years never built a single nuclear power station. Oh, they talked about it—boy, did they talk about it—but they never actually got it done. In terms of Chinese and French investment, I
	think we should welcome foreign investment into our country, building these important utilities so that we can use our firepower for the schools, the hospitals, the roads and the railways we need.

Andrew Percy: In my constituency there are shortly to be more than 100 wind turbines and there are about 30 or 40 more in the planning system. These turbines are paid for by constituents but they are not constructed here or creating any jobs in my constituency. When the Prime Minister rightly reviews green taxes, will he ensure that the changes to green subsidies ensure that jobs in that energy sector are here in the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: I know how hard my hon. Friend has worked with other MPs on a cross-party basis right across the Yorkshire and Humberside region to try to attract investment into our country, and we should continue to target that investment.

Ian Lucas: Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the positive role played by trade unions in the work of the Automotive Council, which has brought about the renaissance in the UK car industry?

David Cameron: The Automotive Council has been extremely successful. Where trade unions play a positive role, I will be the first to praise them, but where, frankly, we have a real problem with a rogue trade unionist at Grangemouth who nearly brought the Scottish petrochemical industry to its knees, we need to have a proper inquiry—a Labour inquiry. If Labour Members had any courage, any vision or any strength of decision making, they would recognise the need to have that inquiry and get to the bottom of what happened.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Changes to Health Services in London

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the “Shaping a healthier future” programme, a locally led review of NHS services across north-west London.
	The NHS is one of the greatest institutions in the world. Ensuring that it is sustainable and that it serves the best interests of patients sometimes means taking tough decisions. The population of north-west London is growing and will reach approximately 2.15 million by 2018. About 300,000 people have a long-term condition. However, there is great variation in the quality of acute care. In 2011, there was a 10% higher mortality rate at weekends for emergency admissions, and the number of hospital re-admissions differs considerably across the area. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel expressed concerns that the status quo in north-west London was neither sustainable nor desirable, and might not even be stable.
	In order to address these challenges, the NHS in London started the “Shaping a healthier future” programme in 2009. It proposed significant changes to services, including centralising accident and emergency services at five rather than nine hospitals; 24/7 urgent care centres at all nine hospitals; 24/7 consultant cover in all obstetric wards; a brand new trauma hospital at St Mary’s hospital, Paddington; brand new custom-built local hospitals at Ealing and Charing Cross; seven-day access to GP surgeries throughout north-west London; the creation of over 800 additional posts to improve out-of-hospital care, including a named, accountable clinician for all vulnerable and elderly patients with fully integrated provision by the health and social care systems; and increased investment in mental health and psychiatric liaison services.
	These changes represent the most ambitious plans to transform care put forward by any NHS local area to date. They are forward-thinking and address many of the most pressing issues facing the NHS, including seven-day working, improved hospital safety and proactive out-of-hospital and GP services. The improvements in emergency care alone should save about 130 lives per annum and the transformation in out-of-hospital care many more, giving north-west London probably the best out-of-hospital care anywhere in the country.
	The plans are supported by all eight clinical commissioning groups, the medical directors of all nine local NHS trusts, and all local councils except Ealing. It was as a result of a referral to me by Ealing council on 19 March 2013 that I asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to conduct a full review.
	The panel submitted its comprehensive report to me on 13 September 2013 and I have considered it in detail alongside the referral from Ealing. I am today placing a copy of the panel’s report in the Library, alongside the strong letters of support for the changes that I received from all local CCGs and medical directors. The panel says that “Shaping a healthier future” provides
	“the way forward for the future and that the proposals for change will enable the provision of safe, sustainable and accessible services.”
	Today I have accepted the panel’s advice in full and it will be published on the panel’s website.
	The panel also says that while the changes to A and E at Central Middlesex and Hammersmith hospitals should be implemented as soon as practicable, further work is required before a final decision can be made about the range of services to be provided from the Ealing and Charing Cross hospital sites.
	Because the process to date has already taken four years, causing considerable and understandable local concern, I have today decided it is time to end the uncertainty. Therefore, while I accept the need for further work, as the IRP suggests, I have decided that the outcome should be that Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals should continue to offer an A and E service, even if it is a different shape or size from that currently offered.
	Any changes implemented as part of “Shaping a healthier future” should be implemented by local commissioners following proper public engagement and in line with the emerging principles of the Keogh review of accident and emergency services.
	I have today written to the chair and vice-chair of the health and adult social services standing scrutiny panel of the London borough of Ealing council, the chair of the IRP Lord Bernie Ribeiro, the chief executive of NHS England and local MPs, informing them of my decision.
	These much-needed changes will put patients at the centre of their local NHS, with more accessible, 24/7 front-line care at home, in GP surgeries, in hospitals and in the community. More money will be spent on front-line care, which focuses on the patient. Less will be wasted on duplication and under-performing services.
	Let me be clear that, in the joint words of the medical directors at hospitals affected, there is a
	“very high level of clinical support for this programme across NW London”.
	Local services will be designed by clinicians and local residents and will be based on the specific needs of the population.
	None of these changes will take place until NHS England is convinced that the necessary increases in capacity in north-west London’s hospitals and primary and community services have taken place.
	I want to put on the record my thanks to the IRP for its thorough advice. As the medical directors of all the local hospitals concerned said in their letter to me, these changes will
	“save many lives each year and significantly improve patients care and experience of the NHS.”
	When local doctors tell me that that is the prize, I will not duck a difficult decision.
	I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: People at home will have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has just said, and they will have one simple question in their mind: why is this man trying to close so many A and Es when we are in the middle of an A and E crisis? At least seven A and Es across the capital are under threat, at a time when all London A and Es are working flat out and are full to capacity. As we stand here, thousands of people are waiting to be seen, stuck on trolleys or held in the back of ambulances that are queuing outside A and E. When the A and Es we have are struggling to cope, how on earth can it be safe to close or downgrade so many?
	That brings me to what I see as the major flaw in what the Secretary of State has announced. These plans have been in development for four years, as he said. Four years ago, A and E was not in the crisis that it faces today. The reality on the ground in London has changed. In 2013, A and Es in London have been getting worse and worse and worse. Across London, 200,000 people have waited in A and E for longer than four hours in the past 12 months. Here is the statistic that should make people stop and think: taking all its major A and E units together, London has missed the Government’s A and E target in 48 of the last 52 weeks.
	Any further changes to this fragile and overburdened system must proceed with the utmost caution. Will the Secretary of State give me a categorical assurance that he personally gave in-depth consideration to the latest evidence of the pressure on London A and Es and to the changed reality that 2013 has brought before making his decision? I understand how tough such decisions are. Sometimes, difficult changes need to be made, as I found when I reorganised stroke services in London before the last election. When he does the right thing, based on a clear clinical case that lives will be saved, we will support him, as we did on children’s heart surgery. The problem with the closure programme, as managers admitted to Members of the House at the outset, is that it is primarily about saving money, not saving lives.
	Even though the Secretary of State has made some minor concessions today, he is still performing pretty brutal surgery on west London’s NHS. It is the single biggest hospital closure programme the NHS has ever seen. Has he considered the impact of the changes on people in those communities who are on low incomes? They will face much greater costs and journey times in getting to hospital.
	Will the Secretary of State be straight with us on the much-loved Charing Cross and Ealing hospitals? I listened carefully to what he said. What is the “further work” that he referred to? He spoke of their A and Es being of a different size and shape. Is that not spin for saying that the units will be downgraded and become urgent care centres? Alternatively, is he giving those units a permanent reprieve today? If he cannot answer those questions directly, local people in those areas will take what he has said as weasel words.
	The Secretary of State said that there will be investment in communities before the changes go ahead. He said that to the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) in respect of Chase Farm hospital, but he is closing that unit next month. What guarantee do people have that he will follow through on this promise, when he broke the promise that he made to his hon. Friend?
	The Secretary of State has made a statement on London health services. People will not have missed the fact that he has failed to mention Lewisham hospital and what happened at the Court of Appeal yesterday. Is that not a staggering omission? The victory that was won by the people of Lewisham will give hope to people who are disappointed by today’s announcement.
	The humiliation of the Secretary of State in court again raises major questions about his judgment and his ability to manage such important decisions. In the summer, we explicitly warned him to accept the first court ruling. Instead, he ploughed on, throwing around
	taxpayers’ money in a cavalier fashion, to protect his pride and defend the indefensible. I have a simple question: how much has he spent on appealing that decision? When he decided to appeal, did the official legal advice from the Government recommend an appeal or did he overrule it? Will he confirm today to this House and to the people of Lewisham that there will be no further appeal against the court’s ruling? Will he give the people of Lewisham and the staff who work at Lewisham hospital a commitment that their A and E and maternity services will be protected? Finally, will he apologise to the people of Lewisham for the unnecessary distress and worry he has put them through?
	It will not have escaped people’s notice that the Secretary of State is trying to put powers through the House quite soon to grab further powers for himself and drive through financial closures of A and Es without proper consultation, so that in effect he can do what he tried to do to Lewisham to every community in England. That will send a chill wind through those communities that fear to lose their A and Es, and that is why we will oppose those powers when they are considered by the House.
	In conclusion, the Government have come a long way since the Prime Minister stood outside Chase Farm hospital days after the last general election and promised a moratorium on all hospital changes. Local people in west London will not have forgotten the Prime Minister standing outside Ealing and Central Middlesex hospitals and promising the same. People are seeing through a Prime Minister whose broken promises on the NHS are catching up with him. Has it ever been clearer than it is today that people simply cannot trust the Tories with the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is sounding more and more desperate. Today the Government have taken a difficult decision that will improve services for patients. It was a moment for him to show that he understood the challenges facing the NHS, but that was not to be. He said that we should not proceed with the changes given winter pressures on A and Es, but he should read the document. The proposals are for more emergency care doctors, more critical care doctors, and more psychiatric liaison support that helps A and E departments, and they are supported by the medical directors of all nine trusts affected. He said that if evidence can be produced to show that the proposals will save lives, Labour will support them. What more evidence does he want? He should be shouting from the rooftops to support the proposals, but instead he is putting politics before patients.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned A and E performance, and I am happy to tell him about that. On average a person now waits 50 minutes in A and E before they are seen; when he was Health Secretary it was 71 minutes. The number of patients seen in less than four hours every day is 57,000—nearly 2,000 more than when the right hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary. Our hospitals are performing extremely well under a great deal of pressure because we are taking difficult decisions of the kind that we are talking about today.
	The right hon. Gentleman also talked about hospital closures. Again, he should read the proposals: a brand new trauma centre at St Mary’s hospital in Paddington; two brand new elective care centres at Ealing and Charing
	Cross; seven-day NHS care that will save lives; 24/7 obstetric care; 16 paediatric care centres. Those are big improvements in hospital care—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I will come on to Lewisham. I am acting to end uncertainty because I made the decision today that whatever the outcome of further discussions that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel recommends, there will remain an A and E at Ealing and Charing Cross. That is the best thing I can do for those residents.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Lewisham, but let us remember that the problem started because his Government saddled South London Healthcare NHS Trust with £150 million in private finance initiative costs. I judged that the right thing for patients was to sort out a problem that was diverting £1 million every week from the front line. Yes it is difficult, but I would rather lose a battle with the courts trying to do the right thing for patients than not try at all.
	Finally, these are difficult decisions, but the party that really has NHS interests at heart is the one that is prepared to grip those decisions. We are gripping the problems in A and E, and in terms of hospital reconfigurations. That is why the NHS is safe in our hands and not safe in those of the Labour party.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we tackle health inequalities, and improve health outcomes and access to accident and emergency departments, by facing up to the need to make difficult decisions to change the way care is delivered to keep it up to date? Does he further agree that today we have seen a Government who are prepared to face those challenges, and an Opposition spokesman who has demonstrated a determination to duck them? Who cares about the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. He is right that this is about facing up to difficult decisions. One aspect of the proposals that is so exciting for people who want a transformation in services is that they involve employing 800 additional people for out-of-hospital care. The real way we will reduce pressure on A and E units is by ensuring that people, particularly the frail and elderly, are looked after better at home. That is what we must do. We must recognise that, fundamentally, the problems will not be solved by trying to pour in money in the way that it has always been poured in. We must rethink the model. This is a positive and ambitious programme. If the shadow Secretary of State were in my shoes, he would speak differently of the proposals, because they represent the way forward for the kind of integrated care he normally champions.

Joan Ruddock: Let me remind the Secretary of State that the High Court ruled that his actions in trying to remove services from Lewisham hospital to save a separate failing trust were illegal. He then lost the appeal. Will he now stop throwing good public money after bad, leave Lewisham hospital alone, and learn to respect the views of the people who work in our hospital and those who use its services?

Jeremy Hunt: I respect those views and the right hon. Lady for her campaigning. I understand why the people of Lewisham were unhappy about those changes but, as Health Secretary, I had to take a decision in the interests of all patients in south London. That was the first time
	the powers—the trust special administrator powers—were used. My interpretation was different from the courts, but I respect them as the final arbiter of what the law means. However, when we have to make difficult decisions about turning round failing hospitals—south London has some of the most serious problems in the country—it is important that the local NHS can take a wider health economy view of what changes are necessary. As I have said, I will respect what the Court has decided, but it is important that I continue to battle for the right thing for patients.

Nick de Bois: The Secretary of State, his predecessor and the Prime Minister are well aware of my continued opposition to the decision to downgrade Chase Farm. However, today, will he join me in condemning the shadow Secretary of State, who has said that Chase Farm is closing? It is not closing. Against my wishes, there is a proposal to downgrade the A and E unit. The hypocrisy and politicking is worse because the previous Labour Government initiated the process and authorised the downgrade in the first place.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. It is disappointing that we are not having a more intelligent debate. When Labour was in power, it closed or downgraded 12 A and E units in 13 years. The then Government realised that there were problems. He is right that they started the problem in Chase Farm. That is why, when we are facing such difficult decisions, it is important to have a responsible debate. I accept that MPs have views on their constituencies, but we have to start looking above the parapet to the wider interests of patients. That is a difficult thing to do, but I would have hoped for more leadership from the shadow Secretary of State, who used to be Health Secretary.

Andy Slaughter: The Secretary of State is destroying services in four great London hospitals, two of which are in my constituency, in the biggest closure programme in the history of the NHS. Why is he closing A and Es in two of the most deprived communities in London—Brent and White City—and why, rather than certainty, is he installing chaos into Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals? What is happening to the 500 beds at Charing Cross? What is happening to the best stroke unit in the country? What does he mean by A and Es that are different in size and shape? When will he answer those questions? This is a cheap political fix. How can anyone have confidence in the Secretary of State—

Mr Speaker: Order. We understand the general drift of the observations—[Interruption.] Order. I understand how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, but he should really ask one question. The Secretary of State is a man of dexterity and no doubt will meet the hon. Gentleman’s needs as he sees fit.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will. The hon. Gentleman does no credit to himself or his party with such hyperbole. Let me remind him that the leaders of the clinical commissioning groups, including the ones in his area, which are there to look after his constituents, have said that
	“delivering the Shaping a Healthier Future recommendations in full will save many lives each year and significantly improve patients’ care and experience of the NHS.”
	That is what the doctors are saying, which is what I want to follow.

Bob Blackman: At the Central Middlesex hospital, we have well qualified doctors and nurses waiting for patients to arrive but, at the same time, we have long queues at Northwick Park hospital. That makes no sense. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that any reduced resources at Central Middlesex hospital will be transferred in full to Northwick Park so that patients can be seen far more quickly and in a far better manner?

Jeremy Hunt: I assure my hon. Friend that the resources taken out of some acute services will be used to give better, safer and more high-quality services to his constituents. Northwick Park is one of the best examples of that. Stroke services in the north-west London area were centralised in Charing Cross and Northwick Park. As a result of those changes, which were introduced by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), stroke mortality rates in London have halved. That is a very good example of why it makes sense to centralise certain more specialist and complex services if we are to get the best results for patients.

Andrew Love: The Secretary of State talked about putting politics before patients, but I remind him that the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, went to Chase Farm to say that the Conservatives would stop all configurations. That simply has not happened, but yet the Secretary of State continues to have a role. Patients and local residents are firmly opposed to the reconfiguration at that hospital and he will end up in court very soon over the matter. There is still time for him to reconsider that decision.

Jeremy Hunt: We did not agree with how the previous Government went about reconfigurations. I have announced a better way of achieving them, with better public and clinical support. My predecessor as Health Secretary paused on reconfigurations because he wanted to introduce a better structure, including the four tests, one of which was the need for local clinical support, and another of which was the need for effective public engagement. That is why we are in a better place today than we were with the previous Government’s reconfigurations.

Sarah Teather: My constituents in Brent will be very disappointed with the Secretary of State’s announcement of the A and E closure at Central Middlesex hospital. However, given that the hospital trust began moving acute services out to Northwick Park hospital many years before the process began, they will probably not be surprised. Does he agree that there is an urgent need for health managers to work closely with Transport for London to ensure good transport links for my constituents in Harlesden to get to Northwick Park? It is currently extremely difficult to do so. Will he write to health managers to express that view?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady makes an important point. I accept that there will be changes in transport arrangements. I am happy to work with her and to talk to TfL about how improvements can be made in respect of the changes I have announced today.
	I hope that the hon. Lady talks to her constituents about the positive aspects of the proposals. Hers will be the first part of the country in which all GP surgeries are open seven days a week—at least, there will be seven-day access to GP surgeries throughout her constituency and north-west London. North-west London will be the first part of the country where we have full seven-day working and we eliminate the fact that mortality rates are 10% higher if people are admitted in an emergency at the weekend. The positive aspects of the proposals will mean that her constituents find that they get better, safer care and live for longer.

John McDonnell: I represent wards with some of the highest morbidity and lowest life expectancy in north-west London. Clinical support for reform and restructuring was based on adequate funding during the period. Hillingdon clinical commissioning group has written to the Secretary of State to express its concern about the current funding formula, which could undermine service delivery unless there are additional resources. Will he meet representatives from the CCG and Hillingdon hospital, to which he has denied additional winter money this year, to talk about the long-term future of our health economy?

Jeremy Hunt: Hillingdon CCG supports the changes because it recognises the profound impact they could have in addressing health inequalities. I know that that is precisely what concerns the hon. Gentleman. His constituents will be big beneficiaries of the changes we are announcing today. The funding formula is an extremely difficult issue. We have decided to depoliticise it by making it a matter for NHS England—it is decided at arm’s length from politicians because we believe it is very important that things are decided on the basis of an independent formula.

John Randall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We in Hillingdon are very pleased for our near neighbours in Ealing and in Charing Cross for this reprieve—rather than stay of execution—and it will take pressure off our residents. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), however, about the pressures we are facing in Hillingdon. Perhaps we could have a meeting with my right hon. Friend to discuss some of these, issues, including the funding formula and the winter pressures.

Jeremy Hunt: It is the first time I have responded to a question from my hon. Friend, so I shall take the opportunity to congratulate him on his knighthood. I am more than happy to meet him and his neighbour as long as they understand that the funding formula is not in my gift—it is decided by an independent body. As for the winter pressures money, the allocation was not decided by Ministers: it was decided by the people who are responsible for making sure that we head off winter pressures. They decided to concentrate resources in the third of the country where the problems were most severe, and that is how that selection was made.

Diane Abbott: The whole House knows that all the medical directors in the hospitals involved in north-west London support the reconfiguration. Does the Secretary of State really understand the importance of bringing ordinary people with him? Londoners are especially cautious about these reconfigurations because of the historic problems with access to GPs and the many excluded communities for whom A and E is their primary care, and because these institutions are often major employers in their area and people identify with them. Does he realise that unless he brings ordinary people and patients with him on these reconfigurations, Londoners will continue to fight them and, as in the case of Lewisham, they will continue to win?

Jeremy Hunt: Apart from the very last sentence, I actually agree with what the hon. Lady says. It is important to carry the public with us in these reconfigurations. Governments from both sides of the House have struggled to do that in these difficult reconfigurations, which is why the new structures that we have introduced will put doctors in the front line to argue for changes. It is not just the medical directors of trusts supporting them, but the CCG leaders, who are all local GPs, making that case. That is why there is much stronger support for these changes. All the elected representatives on the local councils, apart from Ealing, supported these changes, and that is a very big change from what we have seen previously. I agree with the hon. Lady: we need to do more work and it is very important to carry people with us.

Angie Bray: It is fair to say that today’s announcement leaves my constituents in a much better place than they were over a year ago when we set out to save our four local A and Es. Obviously, there is disappointment about the loss of the A and Es at Hammersmith and Central Middlesex, but huge relief that the bigger A and Es at Ealing and Charing Cross will be saved. My right hon. Friend says, rightly, that it will be for the local CCGs to take responsibility for the future of these A and Es. Can he give us a little more detail on how he sees the services being delivered and improved by the CCGs, and can he reconfirm that the A and Es at Ealing and Charing Cross will be saved as A and Es?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely confirm that A and Es will remain at Charing Cross and Ealing hospitals, thanks in no small part to the remarkable campaigning that my hon. Friend has done for her constituents, both in public and in private. I commend her for that. The process that has to happen is clearly set out in what the IRP says and in my reply. There must be full consultation. There will be changes to the way in which services are provided, but they will be changes made in the interests of patients. Whatever those changes are, A and Es will remain at those two hospitals.

Heidi Alexander: It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State to accuse the Opposition of being desperate when he has been told by the court not once, but twice that he acted unlawfully in relation to Lewisham. The Secretary of State’s amendment to the Care Bill would enable him to do to other hospitals what the courts said yesterday he could not do in south London. Will he admit that under those changes no
	hospital would be safe, and that in fact he wants to inflict the blatant injustice that he tried to inflict on Lewisham on hospitals not only across London, but up and down the country?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand why the hon. Lady is rightly representing the concerns of her constituents, but she must also understand that I have to look at their interests as patients, as well as at the interests of the broader south London population. It is important to make that amendment to the Care Bill because hospitals are not islands on their own. We have a very interconnected health economy, and what happens in Lewisham has a direct impact on what happens in Woolwich and vice versa. If we are to turn around failing hospitals quickly—something that the last Government sadly did not do—we need to have the ability to look at the whole health economy, not at problems in isolation.

Lee Scott: Will my right hon. Friend look again at Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust? As he knows, the difficulties that Queen’s hospital has had simply meant that, in its own admission, it would not be able to cope without an A and E at King George hospital for many years to come.

Jeremy Hunt: I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue with me consistently. I know his very real concern is to make sure that when those changes are made they do not have an adverse impact on his constituents. I will go back and make absolutely certain that no changes will be made until it is certain that they are clinically safe.

Jim Dowd: Why does the Secretary of State find it so difficult to realise that he is not above the law? Both the Court of Appeal and the High Court have made it plain that his flagrant disregard for the law in trying to destroy Lewisham hospital cannot stand. Why does he not have the decency to abandon his proposals; apologise to the people of Lewisham and the staff and users of Lewisham hospital; and share his humiliation with the Leader of the House, the previous Secretary of State, who launched this illegal programme in the first place?

Jeremy Hunt: There is no humiliation in doing the right thing for patients, and I will always do that. Sometimes it is difficult and we have battles with the courts, but no one is above the law. I have said that I respect the judgment made by the court yesterday, and that is what I shall do.

David Burrowes: Are there not three lessons to learn from the Secretary of State’s statement and the response from the shadow Secretary of State? First, we should listen to the opinions of local doctors. Secondly, delay puts at risk patient safety. Thirdly, we should not play politics. For Enfield, is it not the case that we should recognise that local doctors have united to say that we need to get on and implement changes, because delay would put at risk patient safety this winter, not least at our new, expanded North Middlesex hospital in Enfield? The future of Chase Farm is secure, but it could also be put at risk if we do not allow the implementation of good changes. We should not play politics, but Enfield council is doing so by trying to challenge the changes.

Jeremy Hunt: As so often, my hon. Friend speaks wisely. It is very important that in all this we do the right thing for patients. My view on all these big changes is that once we have decided what to do, it should be done as quickly as possible, but within the bounds of what is clinically safe. It is very important that safeguards are in place and I would always follow the advice of local doctors as to the right moment to proceed with an important change in safety.

Stephen Timms: Will the Secretary of State commit to doing better against the four-hour A and E waiting target in London in the future? Will he put on the record today his acknowledgement of the value of the contribution being made by those A and E units—too few at the moment—that are doing well against that target at the moment?

Jeremy Hunt: There are a number of hospitals that are doing extremely well, and we are doing everything we can to support those that are in difficulty. I absolutely recognise how hard front-line NHS staff are working: we are working with them in an incredibly detailed way on a hospital-by-hospital basis, not just in London but across the country, to see what additional support we can give to people as we go through a difficult winter. We have already announced £250 million of support for the third of trusts in the greatest difficulty, and we are looking at what other, non-financial means we can use to support other trusts. The search continues, because we recognise how challenging winters are for the NHS under this Government as under previous ones.

Simon Hughes: Given the difficult legacy of the financial arrangements in London and south-east London in particular, and the Court of Appeal judgment yesterday, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that in future decisions will have the support of GPs in the areas affected; will not put at risk other viable and successful parts of the London health family; and will not suddenly impose new management structures and create huge disruption—for example, at King’s College hospital, Guy’s hospital and St Thomas’s hospital—as London health partners appear to be suggesting?

Jeremy Hunt: I certainly agree with two of the three points. I do not think it is credible to say that we will not make any changes to the NHS, even if they are in the interests of patients, unless there is unanimous support from local GPs. The reality is that that would always be difficult to achieve. We would end up with paralysis, which would be against the interests of patients. However, I do think that GPs should be in the driving seat and be the advocates of these changes, and we should listen to them above all people on whether to proceed with the changes. The whole purpose of the Government’s reforms to the NHS is to create less bureaucracy not more, so I would be concerned if there was any suggestion that more was being created.
	We must always ensure that changes do not have an adverse impact on successful neighbouring areas. However, we need to encourage all areas to work together, because we have an interconnected health economy, particularly in London.

Virendra Sharma: I cannot find the words to express how disappointed the residents in my constituency, and elsewhere in west London, will be on hearing the statement. We are not clear about what will happen to Ealing hospital. You are not clear in your statement, before the final decision is made, about the range of services that will be provided from Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals. What work will be done? Will you consider or ignore, like you totally ignored the thousands of people who marched in the rain outside Ealing hospital in west London two weeks ago—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but may I just say to him that I will not be doing any of the things that he suggested? I think his inquiry was directed at the Secretary of State, rather then me. I have no responsibility for health services in London or anywhere else.

Virendra Sharma: I apologise if I have given that impression.

Mr Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Virendra Sharma: Will the—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say and we are grateful to him.

Jeremy Hunt: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed. I am interested to know what his definition of “totally ignored” means, because we have decided that we will not close Ealing A and E, and that is a big decision. With respect to how his constituents feel, I completely understand that many people will be nervous about any changes. I hope he will become a big advocate of these changes, because his constituents will be among the first in the country to have seven-day access to GPs and a seven-day NHS, which means there will not be a higher mortality rate for admission to hospitals at the weekends and that there will be 24/7 consultant obstetric cover for people who need it when giving birth. They are big and important changes that will benefit his constituents.

Mr Speaker: Order. I should just say to the House, almost as a courtesy, that I am prioritising London Members. However, non-London Members should take heart. If they exercise their knee muscles they may have an opportunity in due course.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was absolutely spot on in her question to the Secretary of State, not least with regard to variability and accessibility of GP services. A few months ago, I asked him whether he would make it a requirement for plans to expand out-of-hospital care to be in place before hospital changes occur. Can I take it from his statement that it is his intention that, when recommendations from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel are before him, he will require plans to build capability for community health services and primary care services to be in place before they go ahead?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman campaigns assiduously for his constituents. I recognise that there are worries about potential changes in his constituency, an issue he often raises. Yes, we must ensure, if there are
	transitions or changes, that proper plans are in place to ensure they can be made safely. If he reads the report, he will derive a great deal of comfort from the stress the IRP puts on the necessity of having proper alternative provision in place before any changes are made.

Karen Buck: The Secretary of State’s statement has left us even less clear than we were on the implications for hospital services for Westminster residents. Frankly, that is quite an achievement. Planned non-emergency hospital services have already moved away from St Mary’s Paddington to pre-empt the closure programmes that he is now telling us will not happen. That was done on the basis that St Mary’s would become the premier emergency hospital for west London, so where does that leave the provision of additional emergency services? Will that leave my constituents having to travel to Hammersmith, Ealing and Central Middlesex hospitals for their treatment, something the local authority was not even consulted on? Many GPs did not even know where their patients were being treated.

Jeremy Hunt: I hope that I have provided clarity by saying that there will remain an A and E at Ealing and Charing Cross, and that I support what the report says, which is that there should be five major A and E centres, of which St Mary’s Paddington will probably become the most pre-eminent trauma centre in the country. This is a big step for the hon. Lady’s constituents who use St Mary’s, and I think that they will be pleased with what I have said today.

Mary Macleod: I congratulate the Health Secretary on his important announcement regarding the A and Es at Charing Cross and Ealing. My constituents in Chiswick will feel reassured about the ongoing service at Charing Cross, and I thank him for that. Does he agree it is important that what is at the centre of any decision he makes about health care is improved patient care and saving lives across London?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the dust settles on these decisions—there is rightly so much local passion, concern and uncertainty relating to hospitals, such as Charing Cross, which has a great tradition—what people will notice is whether their local NHS services are getting better. I am afraid that one of the legacies from the previous Government was the abolition of named GPs in 2004 and a sense that it has become more difficult to access one’s local GP. The proposals mean that her constituents will be some of the first in the country to have seven-day GP services, a big step forward that her constituents will welcome.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance, following the huge debate that took place over the future of the A and E department of the Whittington hospital, and, by extension, the neighbouring Royal Free hospital, that its future is secure and that he will not try to reconfigure services once again in north London? Does he recognise that during that debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who was then Secretary of State, intervened to assure the future of the Whittington A and E department? I would like the same assurance from the Secretary of State, if that is possible.

Jeremy Hunt: I think the best reassurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that, unlike when the Labour party was in power, the Secretary of State does not sit behind his desk planning reconfigurations in every part of the country. This is a locally driven process. We have put in place safeguards to ensure that, where there is a reconfiguration proposal from a local NHS, it meets certain criteria. It has to be supported by local GPs and there has to be proper engagement with the public. If his constituents are worried, I hope they will take heart from the thoroughness of the process that has happened today. It is the right process and a good process, and it will lead to better outcomes for the people involved.

Brian Binley: My own general hospital, in keeping with many throughout the country, has come in for unfair criticism owing to the increasing pressures being exerted on its A and E department. What does the Secretary of State think has caused those pressures, and will he reassure my constituents by telling us what he is doing to help relieve A and E departments?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pressures. I am sure that most A and E departments, including his own one in Northampton, would say that the biggest single cause has been the increase in the frail elderly population and the inadequacy of the care those people receive outside hospital. We are trying to put that right by having named, accountable GPs responsible for out-of-hospital care, reversing the historic mistake made in 2004, when that personal link between GP and patient was abolished.

Barry Gardiner: This decision is devastating for my constituents. The Secretary of State will know that in the last winter period, Northwick Park hospital and Central Middlesex hospital, which comprise the North West London Hospitals Trust, were the worst-performing hospitals when it came to meeting A and E targets not only in London, but in the country. The trust scored 81.03%. That is an appalling record. What he has done today, by announcing the almost immediate closure of Central Middlesex, can only make that much worse. The College of Emergency Medicine has said that his reconfigured hospitals should have at least 16 consultants in their emergency departments, but his decision will give them 10—and that is not for major trauma centres. Will he elaborate on what he will do to bring the number of consultants up to the level required by the college?

Jeremy Hunt: Has the hon. Gentleman, who is so against these proposals, not noticed the proposals for more emergency care doctors, more critical care doctors and more psychiatric liaison support for A and E departments, which will reduce pressure on A and Es and mean that people admitted through A and Es for emergency care will not have a 10% higher chance of mortality if they are admitted at weekends? His constituents will be among the first to benefit from that. I would caution him, therefore, against saying that this is devastating for his constituents. We were reminded in Prime Minister’s questions earlier of how Labour suffered from predicting massive job losses, when in fact there was an increase in jobs. This announcement is good news for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and he should welcome it.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, difficult though it may be, all NHS trusts will have to live within their budgets, because, with both Front Benches effectively having agreed public spending limits for several years to come, the amount of money that can be spent on the NHS will be finite whoever is in government?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. Let us bear in mind the challenges facing north-west London, which are similar to those across the country, including in Oxfordshire. In the next two decades, its population is predicted to increase by 7%, and life expectancy has risen by three years in the last decade alone. Furthermore, the uncertainty over public finances means that the trust cannot bank on substantial increases in the NHS budget, so it has to do the responsible thing and look for better, smarter, more efficient ways to use that money to help more people. It has been brave and bold in doing this, and I think that many other parts of the country will take heart from what has happened today and come forward with equally bold plans.

Stephen Pound: Your House, Mr Speaker, is being made dizzy this afternoon by the surfeit of spin we are suffering. We are being asked to believe that this benevolent Government are partly motivated by a desire to end uncertainty. The death sentence ends the uncertainty of life, but it is not necessarily something I would recommend. Will the Secretary of State please provide a little information about what exactly a different shape and size A and E department looks like? The people of Ealing deserve to be told precisely what it means, otherwise they will think the worst.

Jeremy Hunt: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that today the death sentence on A and E at Ealing has been not just reprieved, but cancelled; it will keep its A and E. The definition of A and E is not something that politicians decide. We said in the statement that what the A and Es at Ealing and Charing Cross contain must be consistent with Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of A and E services across the country, which they will be, and that any changes made in service provision must have full consultation with his constituents, which will happen. On the basis of an IRP report that simply says, “More work needs to be done,” I cannot answer all his questions, but I hope I can give him greater certainty than he had this morning that there will be an A and E for his constituents in Ealing.

Sarah Wollaston: Clinically led, evidence-based changes to services save lives. That is straightforward and clear. It is also clear that we have to make these changes happen if we are to live within our means and the health service budget. How are we going to make reconfigurations such as this one more straightforward, because the cost and time are unacceptable? Likewise with mergers, how are we going to streamline this process?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. It concerns me, as it does her, that these processes take so long. When it comes to changes in A and E and maternity services, exhaustive public consultation is necessary, because they cause such great public concern, but we
	also need to deal with these issues in a much more timely way, particularly when it involves sorting out the problems of failing hospitals. I agree with her, therefore, and I am looking at what can be done to speed up all these processes, while retaining the appropriate consultation with the public.

Lisa Nandy: Does the Secretary of State have any idea of the concern he is causing up and down the country? In Wigan, we value our 24-hour A and E service; we do not want it downgraded, and we do not want it closed. Will he clarify his proposal for the future of Ealing A and E? Is he proposing a type 1 service? Also, will he give me a cast-iron guarantee that any future decision about our local hospital will be made on the basis of people’s lives, not cost?

Jeremy Hunt: I can assure the hon. Lady that decisions about the future of A and Es will be based on what is best for patients and on what will save lives and get the best outcomes—that will apply in her constituency, as it will in mine and every other constituency—but that will sometimes mean a difficult decision if we have a change that doctors strongly support, but about which members of the public are anxious. I have said that services at Ealing will change, but that there will be proper public consultation and that at the end of the process there will still be an A and E. The recommendation from the process was that the A and E should close, but I said, “No, I think there should be an A and E at the end of the process.” I am injecting that much certainty, therefore, but I am not going to micro-manage the local NHS by saying precisely what those services should be.

Oliver Colvile: It is not only A and E units in London that are under pressure; Derriford hospital’s A and E unit is also under pressure, because of our night-time economy. Is my right hon. Friend willing to meet me and potentially representatives from the English Pharmacy Board and my own Devon pharmacists to discuss how they can help to relieve some of the pressure on A and E units, especially down in Devon?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and his local pharmacists. There is a lot that pharmacists can do. One change we are making that could make a big difference, where proper protections are in place for patients, is allowing pharmacists to access GP records so that they can give people the correct medicines, know about people’s allergies and things like that. There are lots of other things as well, though, and I look forward to the discussion.

Grahame Morris: The statement has broader implications beyond London, although I accept that colleagues from Islington and Ealing want to ensure they have their A and E facilities. On smaller A and E facilities outside London, however, the Secretary of State said there would be no political fixes, yet when he announced additional moneys to deal with winter pressures on 53 NHS trusts, there were none in the north-east of England. What assurance can he give my constituents that hospitals in the north-east will have sufficient resources to meet the demands placed on them in winter?

Jeremy Hunt: The decision on where to allocate the extra help was based on where the need was greatest, and it was taken not by Ministers, but on the basis of recommendations from people working in the NHS and dealing with these problems. They chose the 53 local health economies where they thought the pressures were greatest. The fact that nowhere in the north-east was selected indicates that A and E performance is better in the north-east of England than in other parts of the country.

Steve Rotheram: When the Secretary of State is not leading the smear campaign against my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), he is continually being dragged into the Chamber to react to events that he should be in control of. When will he finally get a grip on the problems in our A and Es across the country?

Jeremy Hunt: I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman says. There are 1.2 million more people using A and E every year than there were under the last Government, yet people are waiting for a shorter time, with more people being seen within the four-hour target. But we are doing something else. We are addressing the long-term problems of A and E, including the patent failures of the last Government over the GP contract, social care integration and the working time directive. All those things have made the pressures worse, but we are sorting them out.

Points of Order

Jim Sheridan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time in as many weeks, I have had the privilege of asking the Prime Minister a question. On both occasions, however, he did not address the question that I asked in any way whatever. Instead, he answered the question that he thought he was going to be asked. The question I asked him today was about agency workers, but he did not even mention agency workers in his response. How do we go about getting answers from the Prime Minister to the questions that we are asking him?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will know that it is a long-standing practice in the House that considerable latitude is afforded to the Prime Minister of the day to decide in what way to respond to a question. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with an answer—and it is apparent to me that that is so—he has the resources of the Order Paper and the guidance of the Table Office available to him to enable him to pursue the matter until he receives a substantive response to his inquiry. The opportunity therefore exists for written questions, correspondence and other means to extract the information or views that he seeks. I have given the hon. Gentleman a very particular response because I recognise how strongly he feels, but it would not be right for the Chair to interpose himself between a Minister and the hon. Gentleman in circumstances of this kind. I hope that that is helpful. I know that he is a terrier, and that he will pursue his concerns with his usual indefatigability. [Interruption.] The Whip on duty has just said that the hon. Gentleman is a big terrier. He certainly has a big heart, that is for sure.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order relating to the right of Members of the House to have access to Ministers and, in particular, to Ministers at the Home Office. This relates in particular to two cases, whose correspondence I have here. I originally wrote to the Home Office about the first case on 9 July, saying that it was urgent and that I needed a speedy reply. It involved a religious organisation, the Al-Raza Foundation, in my constituency, which had an indispensable need for a religious worker to join it for an event beginning on 1 November. The matter has not been resolved in the interim, despite my repeated attempts to contact the Home Office and, in particular, the Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). That organisation is registered by the Home Office as a sponsor, but its activities have been wrecked by the failure of the Home Office to respond since 9 July.
	The second case involves a constituent of mine who has been in Copenhagen and who has had problems with his passport. He has visited the British embassy there daily, but has received no help. He is now homeless in Copenhagen. During his family’s most recent visit to see me, his brother was in tears over his predicament. I wrote to the Home Office about the case a month ago, saying that it was urgent, but it has not even bothered to respond. I warned it yesterday that if I did not get a
	result by today, I would raise the matter with you, Mr Speaker. As a result of that, I got a completely useless telephone call from a member of the Minister for Immigration’s staff, saying that they would let me know as soon as possible. I do not object to the Home Office treating me like dirt, but I will not have my constituents treated like dirt by a Home Secretary who is, as it happens, the least responsive and courteous Home Secretary I have known in my 43 years in the House of Commons.

Mr Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I say in no facetious spirit but in all solemnity that, having known him throughout my 16 years in the House, I am surprised when Ministers do not judge it prudent simply to respond courteously to him in the first instance, not only because it is the right thing to do but because failure to do so will almost certainly result in a veritable Exocet of protest being lobbed in their direction by the right hon. Gentleman. That appears to have happened now, and I rather imagine that it will continue to do so.
	There are two points here. The first is the question of courteous responses to Members, to which I attach a premium. It would help if Ministers on the Treasury Bench would commit to providing the timely, substantive and courteous responses to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. That is what they ought to do, and I trust that the Leader of the House will ensure that they are up to the mark.
	The second point relates to the question of particular immigration cases. I recognise that there has long been great pressure on the immigration system, under successive Governments, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on how long it might take to resolve a particular case, however needy it might be. However, courtesy, timeliness and comprehensiveness of replies are to be expected from Ministers in relation to correspondence, just as they are rightly expected from Ministers in relation to parliamentary questions. I trust that that message will have been heard, and that it will now be heeded.

Hate Crime (People with Learning Difficulties and Learning Disabilities)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Ian Mearns: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require police forces to register hate crimes committed against people with learning difficulties and learning disabilities including autism; and for connected purposes.
	Right hon. and hon. Members may remember early-day motion 172. It related to hate crime against those with autism, and was signed by 104 Members of this House, showing that this is a matter of concern in this place and in the wider community. I think it is safe to say that everyone in the House either knows someone personally or has met someone with learning difficulties or disabilities, yet how many hon. Members are aware of the abuse and bullying that many of those vulnerable people are subjected to on a regular basis?
	The issue was repeatedly brought to my attention when I was chair of the Valuing People Now partnership board for the north-east and, more recently, during my discussions with the national and international campaigner Kevin Healey, whose autism anti-bullying campaign has been acknowledged by his 147,000 followers on Twitter. But even Kevin is not immune to cyber-bullying, to trolling and to vitriol being directed at him because of his autism.
	To appreciate the seriousness of bullying and hate crime, we need only look at the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington, who took her own life and that of her daughter Francecca Hardwick in 2007, after 10 years of harassment by bullies in her neighbourhood. The case has been well documented, and the resulting recommendations are in line with what I am proposing in the Bill. A few years ago, in one of my neighbouring constituencies, Brent Martin, a young man with learning disabilities, was beaten to death by three people he took to be friends. That was a sad case in which a vulnerable individual was physically abused and murdered by so-called friends. There are ever-growing concerns that hate crime against vulnerable groups is on the rise. My only hope is that the rise is not, as many vulnerable people feel, indicative of an increasing antipathy towards people who are perceived to be different from the rest of society.
	According to Home Office figures for 2011-12, there were 43,748 hate crimes recorded by the police. Of those recorded hate crimes, 82% were race-related; 10% were related to sexual orientation; 4% were religiously motivated; and 4%—only 1,474—were recorded as disability hate crimes. What we need to see happen is for offences motivated by hostility towards the disabled or those with learning disabilities or difficulties to be treated in the same way as those motivated by racial or religious hatred. The victims of these crimes are equally aggrieved and equally harmed as anyone in any other category.
	I think we can all agree that we want disabled people to be protected from criminals and bullies, and in order to guarantee this, we need an effective system whereby hate crimes against these vulnerable individuals are properly reported, recorded and reviewed to combat this scourge.
	I am not sure how many right hon. and hon. Members have had the opportunity to read Mencap’s revealing report “Don’t stand by: ending disability hate crime together”, which investigated how 14 police forces in the UK report disability hate crime and further highlighted how reported disability hate crime against those with learning disabilities and difficulties was significantly lower than actual disability hate crime. The report also found that, although many forces recorded disability hate crime, only one force recorded it by type of impairment—physical, sensory and learning disabilities and mental health conditions. That is concerning. As reported last year by the Director of Public Prosecutions, some force areas recorded a nil return for disability hate crime—I treat that with incredulity.
	Another element found in the report, as well as in the joint review of disability hate crime, was the inability of some police officers to distinguish between learning disability or difficulty hate crime and general antisocial behaviour. In fact, Steve Ashley, programme director to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, who conducted the joint review, said that there was a lack of willingness by police officers and police staff in control rooms to put the right sort of questions to vulnerable people to establish their condition as a victim. Furthermore, improved information sharing between all agencies is essential to ensure that hate crimes against those with learning difficulties and disabilities are properly reported and that prosecutions are pursued as vigorously as racial or religious hate crimes.
	It is a sad fact that all too many victims with learning difficulties or disabilities do not report to the police in the first instance. In 2010, only 1,200 cases of disability hate crime were prosecuted, compared with 48,000 racist or religious crimes. A survey by the National Autistic Society, however, revealed that 81% of respondents said they had experienced verbal abuse; 47% reported that they had been victims of a physical assault; and only 6% said they had not experienced any form of bullying or abuse because of their disability. Furthermore, 28% of respondents had experienced exploitation, theft and fraud or had had their possessions or property damaged; 24% had been victims of cyber-bullying; 65% had experienced hate crime more than 10 times; 73% did not report the crime to police, while of those who did, 54% said the police did not record it as a hate crime, and 40% said the police did not act on their report; and 62% said they did not think that the police had taken disability into account in the recording or otherwise of the crime.
	That is a sample, but we should multiply that by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are either on the autistic spectrum or have learning
	disabilities or difficulties—and therein lies a catalogue of untold misery. The last few statistics highlight the necessity for improved police training when it comes to identifying, first, whether a person is disabled and which type of disability they have and, secondly, whether what they are reporting is a hate crime.
	Many people with learning difficulties and disabilities, including autism, find it difficult to communicate with others, and this has resulted in some quite horrific cases. You may have heard, Mr Speaker, about the teenage boy with autism who attended a special educational needs school. While he was visiting a swimming pool, staff became concerned about him, and he was physically restrained and handcuffed by police. That resulted in the family receiving damages, and the High Court described the treatment of the boy as “inhuman and degrading”. This case highlights the need for autism, learning disabilities, learning difficulties and general disability awareness training for police officers.
	It is important that we accept that this is a national problem and a national scandal, when people with learning disabilities and difficulties are having dreadful experiences because of bullying, verbal and physical abuse and intimidation. There needs to be a clear definition of disability hate crime, which encompasses people with learning disabilities and difficulties, and disability hate crime should become a specific criminal offence. Police forces around the country need to accept that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with and that there is a proper recording method when such crimes occur. We must urge police forces and police and crime commissioners to take learning disability and difficulty hate crime seriously in their individual force areas.
	We need to ensure that people with learning difficulties and disabilities are protected from this unwanted and unwarranted harassment, physical harm and mental torture, which can often make lives a misery and indeed lead to tragic consequences. In preparation for this Bill, I was assisted by contributions from the National Autistic Society, Leonard Cheshire Disability, Mencap, Dimensions UK and a personal account from active campaigner, Kevin Healey. I place on record my thanks to all of them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Ian Mearns, Pat Glass, Mark Durkan, Mrs Mary Glindon, John McDonnell, Annette Brooke, Heather Wheeler, Grahame M. Morris, Ian Lavery, Mr Robert Buckland, Craig Whittaker and Paul Farrelly present the Bill.
	Ian Mearns accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014, and to be printed. (Bill 122).

Opposition Day
	  
	[9th Allotted Day]
	  
	Qualified Teachers

Mr Speaker: I advise the House that no amendment has been selected. I shall shortly call Mr Tristram Hunt, but let me point out that as a consequence of the statement, truncated time is available for this debate and no fewer than 16 Members wish to speak, which is reflected in the short time-limit. There is, of course, no time-limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I politely suggest that it would be a considerable discourtesy to Back Benchers if Front Benchers were to take longer than 40 minutes in their opening speeches. The Secretary of State looks a bit alarmed at that, but there is no reason for him to look alarmed; I am sure he can cope, and that the shadow Secretary of State can cope, too.

Tristram Hunt: I beg to move,
	That this House endorses the view that in state funded schools teachers should be qualified or working towards qualified teacher status while they are teaching.
	In moving this motion, the Opposition call on the Government to uphold the highest standards in our schools. We are delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister—if not his Schools Minister, as we never quite know on whose side he is talking—appears finally to have accepted the Labour party’s position on ensuring qualified teacher status within our schools. As if we needed any further proof of the importance of this point, events at the Secretary of State’s Al-Madinah free school in Derby—where the teaching was inadequate, the school dysfunctional and the care of those with special educational needs a disgrace—proved that right.
	This afternoon I shall set out the importance of having a professionally qualified teacher work force; the role that this work force play in allowing children in our schools to reach their full potential; and to urge the Liberal Democrats to rediscover their progressive credentials. I hope to do so succinctly, Mr Speaker, so that many of my colleagues can contribute.

Andrew Percy: rose—

Tristram Hunt: I shall give way first to a teacher.

Andrew Percy: Yes, and one with qualified teacher status—unlike, perhaps, some others.
	May I press the shadow Secretary of State on that issue of qualified teacher status? I taught at a time when we had a Labour Government and, at that time, we saw a massive increase in the number of unqualified teachers, a massive increase in the number of instructors, and a massive increase in the number of teaching assistants taking classes when planning and preparation time was introduced. What has changed the hon. Gentleman’s mind?

Tristram Hunt: Today we are focusing on the future. Under future Labour Governments, we will have qualified teachers in our classrooms. I find it extraordinary that Government Members do not want the best-qualified, best-trained teacher work force in the world.
	In 2010, when the British people lent the Prime Minister their trust and he used to talk about things like the big society, the Government believed in having a motivated, professional teacher cohort. At that time, the Prime Minister rightly said that
	“the most important thing that will determine”
	whether children succeed at school
	“is not their background, or the curricula, or the type of school, or the amount of funding. It’s who the teacher is.”
	Sadly, since then the Secretary of State has focused entirely on curricula, school structure and reducing funding, and has done little to support the skills and capacities of our teachers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tristram Hunt: I should be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend the. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend gives way to a Government Member, may I remind him that in the past a Labour Government went out of their way to secure talented teachers from a much broader background? They introduced all sorts of ways of getting into teaching that were innovative and good, and I saw real changes in our teaching force as a result. We did some very good things, and they did not lead to the employment of unqualified teachers..

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend has made the crucial point that Teach First was a Labour innovation. We believe in innovation, but we also believe in some basic standards in our schools.
	The Secretary of State used to praise teaching standards in Finland, South Korea and Singapore, saying:
	“In all those countries teaching is a high prestige profession.”
	How would the Government ensure that it remained so?
	“By making it difficult to become a teacher.”
	But what has the Secretary of State done in office? He has done everything possible to make it as easy as possible to assume control of a classroom. He has undermined the profession, sought to remove teacher training from universities, and adopted a policy of wholesale deregulation. That has led to a 141% increase in the number of unqualified teachers in free schools and academies. The surprising truth is that under this Government, people need more qualifications to get a job in a burger bar than to teach in an English school. While I salute the efforts of restaurant chains to improve the skills of their work forces, I should like history teachers, as well as hamburger restaurant managers, to have some basic qualifications.

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman is, in my opinion at least, a fine historian. He will recall that when he was at school he was taught by a very fine teacher, Terry Morris, who was the head of the history department. Will he tell the House whether Mr Morris was a qualified teacher, or simply an inspiration?

Tristram Hunt: The great thing about qualified teachers is that they can be both qualified and an inspiration. [Interruption.] I know that the Conservative party is developing something of an obsession with me, so let me say that if Conservative Members want to invite me
	to a special session of the 1922 Committee to talk about my past and history, I shall be more than willing to take up their invitation.
	Why does the Labour party believe in having qualified teachers in our classrooms? The Secretary of State’s 2010 White Paper put it best:
	“The first and most important, lesson is that no education system can be better than the quality of its teachers. The most successful countries…are those where teaching has the highest status as a profession’’.
	In Finland, the world’s highest-performing education system, teacher education is led by universities, and all teachers are qualified to Master level. In Singapore, all teachers are fully trained and have annual training entitlements. The most effective way in which to improve our children’s education is to boost the quality, elevate the standing, and raise the standards of our teaching profession. We need to train teachers up, not talk them down.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend has just alluded to the very point that I wanted to make. The Secretary of State thinks that it is okay for us to have unqualified teachers, but also lauds the Finnish system, under which the minimum retirement for a teacher is to be a qualified professional with a Master’s degree.

Tristram Hunt: That is exactly the difference between the parties. We believe in professionalisation rather than deregulation. We believe in going up the value chain rather than deskilling. The point is simple: good teachers change lives. They engender aspiration, curiosity, self-improvement and a hunger for knowledge. It is teaching that awakens the passion for learning that a prosperous society and a vibrant economy so desperately need. The Secretary of State should heed the words of Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, who has argued for teaching to be elevated
	“to a profession of high-level knowledge workers, who work autonomously and contribute to the profession within a collaborative culture.”

Simon Hughes: I hope that the whole debate will affirm the importance of teachers, qualified teachers, and the teaching profession. The hon. Gentleman is new to his post and fairly new to Parliament, but can he confirm first that under Labour an Act was passed which allowed unqualified teachers to work in schools set up by Labour, and secondly that there are fewer unqualified teachers in our schools now than when Labour was in government?

Tristram Hunt: Last year, the Liberal Democrats had a chance in the other place to support qualified teacher status. We have now heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that they believe in it. The only answer that interests me now is whether Liberal Democrat Front Benchers will vote for their values this afternoon.
	The use of the word “profession” is important here, because we take a different view from the Government. We believe that teaching is more than a craft. Personally, I am full of admiration for craftsmen and craftswomen—I represent Stoke-on-Trent, where, according to J.B. Priestley, the greatest craftsmen and craftswomen, the master potters, lived—but we think that teachers need to know about more than just classroom technique. Teachers need to know how children develop, how subject knowledge
	can be adapted for children of different ages and how pupils with special needs can be supported, and they need an understanding of the latest research on learning.
	I applaud the Government’s focus on ensuring that teachers have good subject knowledge, but—as you well know, Mr Speaker—they also need the attributes that will secure discipline and authority in the classroom and produce a safe learning environment. Those are the qualities that qualified teacher status can help to provide, and they can ensure even higher standards and happier school days for young people. That is certainly the view of the chief inspector of schools. Last year, Sir Michael Wilshaw, the man who had been hand-picked by the Education Secretary to head Ofsted, told the Education Committee:
	“I would expect all the teachers in my school to have qualified teacher status.”
	We all know experts in their field whom we would not trust with the teaching of our children. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) is a not unoriginal scholar of the Plantagenets, but I am not sure that he could deliver a history course for six-year-olds. The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) has a background in aviation, but I would not necessarily trust him with year 7. A great mind might produce a great teacher, but a common standard of training is far more likely to ensure that that is the case most of the time—and that is why the motion is in favour of delivering a qualified teaching profession all the time.

Andy Sawford: I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend took part in the Teach First initiative this year. I did, and I hope that I was able to give something to the young people with whom I spent an hour. They certainly gave a great deal to me. However, what I learnt most from were the skills that the teacher displayed in the classroom, and the ability of that teacher to connect with all the children. Is that not why the debate is so important?

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point: that pedagogy, as well as subject knowledge, is absolutely essential. It seems bizarre that we simply do not want the best-skilled teachers possible.

Anne Main: First, may I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not have an obsession with him? I speak as someone who also has a PGCE to my name on top of my degree, but please do not confuse being qualified and being able to teach pupils with bits of paper. I have seen plenty of excellent teachers without PGCEs and some pretty poor ones with, and I think the hon. Gentleman is getting the two rather mixed up.

Tristram Hunt: This is about reducing the risk in the teaching system. This is about making sure we go up the value chain in terms of qualifications and teacher capacity.
	As it has been raised, let me deal with the issue of non-qualified teachers in the private sector. First, figures from the Independent Schools Council show that 90% of those teaching in such schools have a teaching qualification and over 70% have qualified teacher status. Secondly, if head teachers in the private sector wish to employ teachers without QTS, that is their decision. But a Labour Government will demand a minimum standard
	of QTS for those teaching within the state system. As Secretary of State for Education, I am not going to allow for the deregulatory free-for-all which produces the likes of Al-Madinah.

Graham Stuart: Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the quality of the teachers we are talking about here, who will be sacked after two years? There are fewer than there were when his party left office, we have a tightened-up the Ofsted regulation regime, and there is no place to hide on data and exam results, so I put it to him that a head teacher would only employ a non-QTS teacher today if they were above-average and were delivering a brilliant service to children in the classroom.

Tristram Hunt: When those teachers get into school, we want them to train up for QTS. This is simply about going up the improvement chain. It seems to me entirely uncontroversial.
	Let me also stress that our plans do not affect the artists, the actor, the footballer, builder, businessman or, dare I say it, historian—missing the more incisive quality of debate which a year 5 can provide—who comes into a class to inspire young people about their subjects. For those teachers holding that enormous responsibility for the learning outcomes of young people, however, we would expect, like Sir Michael Wilshaw, a minimum baseline qualification.
	So let me return to the core of this motion: how do we deliver improvements in our schools system and close the attainment gap? The answer is great teaching. Part of that is strong leadership. Part of that is the innovation that comes from Labour’s Teach First policy. Part of that is autonomy. But it is also about further professional development: about stretching our teachers; about learning to improve at every turn.
	Achieving QTS is not the whole answer. It does not in itself, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, guarantee excellence. As the Secretary of State well knows, passing a driving test does not mean that all new drivers will avoid accidents, but this is not a reason to remove the requirement to pass a test. Removing the expectation of QTS means we endanger the status of the teaching profession at a time when we need to raise the status of teaching if we are to succeed in what the Prime Minister calls the global race. The countries with the most successful education systems are going up the value chain, not deskilling. They are raising the status of teaching, not opening the door to our classrooms to anyone who just wants to have a go.
	We have brought this motion to the House because the Labour party is passionate about education. From the earliest days of Robert Owen and the co-operative movement, from our history in the mechanics institutes and the mutual improvement societies, from the Workers Educational Association to the trade union movement, academic and vocational excellence is engrained in the Labour movement’s DNA. And so too with the Liberals: stretching back to the Forster Education Act, or the role of education in that positive vision of freedom enunciated by T. H. Green and L. T. Hobhouse, or John Maynard Keynes’s ambition for post-war cultural enrichment, social mobility and progress has been part
	of the Liberal creed. While the Tory Party supported King and class, our parties are parties of the word—of a belief in the liberating potential of education—which is why it is so depressing to see a once-progressive party sign up to this narrow vision of education: of deregulation, of dumbing-down and a lack of ambition for our schools.
	Great teachers broaden horizons, motivate students, and help young people achieve their potential. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to show the parents, pupils and teachers of this country whose side they are on and to vote for their values this afternoon. In the Labour Party, we have made our choice: professionalism not deregulation; a qualified teacher in every classroom. I commend this motion to the House.

Michael Gove: I welcome the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) to his place as shadow Secretary of State. It is a pleasure to have a historian representing the Labour party on this issue and it was a joy for me to hear him talk about Hobhouse and Keynes, Owen and the mechanics institutes. It is marvellous to have a historian there. However, when he was asked by one of my hon. Friends about more recent history, to wit the Labour party’s record on teaching, his mind was a curious blank. He said he was focused on the future. What a pity that when he was asked that first history question, he passed.

Chris Williamson: rose—

Michael Gove: No. What a pity that when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central was asked about one of his former history teachers—Mr Morris, I believe—like Peter, he denied him thrice, and when he was asked to stand up for Mr Morris, who has done so much for this young lad to help him into the position he now enjoys, he refused to stand up for him. Then when he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) about Labour’s record on education, once more he declined to answer the question. He may have a PhD from Cambridge, but one thing he has to learn about education in our state schools today is, “You do not pass if you don’t answer the questions.” He did not answer the questions; he has failed his first test in the House of Commons.

Chris Williamson: rose—

Michael Gove: No, thank you. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not even asked a question, but I will answer all his points in due course.
	As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central knows, we are fortunate because under the coalition Government we now have—[Interruption.] I will answer the question; he did not. We now have the best generation of teachers—

Chris Williamson: rose—

Michael Gove: In a moment; all in good time. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman is impatient; he is a young one as well.
	We have the best ever generation of teachers in our schools. Gerard Kelly of The Times Educational Supplement has said:
	“Contrary to most reports, teaching in Britain has never been in better health”
	and it
	“is a more respected profession and a more attractive graduate destination than it has been for many years.”
	We are also fortunate that we have, as the OECD has reminded us, the best generation of heads in our schools, and more and more of them are now enjoying the autonomy from bureaucracy and freedom from micro-management that the coalition Government have brought. They need that freedom because of the problems we inherited in our education system. As the OECD reported just last month, our 16 to 25-year-olds—those who were educated under Labour—have some of the worst levels of literacy and numeracy in the developed world. We are the only country in the developed world whose oldest citizens are more literate and numerate than our youngest adults, and what makes matters worse is that educational underperformance under Labour was concentrated in the poorest areas.

Julie Hilling: rose—

Michael Gove: I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

Julie Hilling: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. It seems to me that his maths is not quite adding up, because surely those teachers who are coming into our schools now, and who are, as he just said, the best teachers that have ever come through, will have been educated under a Labour Government. Why is he running down the profession and why does he not agree that those teachers who are qualified should be joined by the other teachers becoming qualified?

Michael Gove: How could I be running down the profession when I have just applauded this generation as the best ever? Why is the hon. Lady so ungracious that she does not acknowledge that under this coalition Government we have the best quality of teaching ever?
	Let me answer the question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central failed to answer. He has one sole criterion by which a good teacher will be judged: the possession of a single piece of paper which entitles someone to QTS. That is all he talked about in his speech. [Interruption.] He cannot have a second bite at the cherry. No resits for the hon. Gentleman. That was his case. But the truth is that under Labour the number of unqualified teachers rose and under the coalition it has fallen. When we came to power there were 17,800 unqualified teachers in our schools. The figure decreased to 15,800 and is now 14,800. Under Labour, the number of unqualified teachers rose to a high point of 18,800, so by the criterion that the hon. Gentleman applies the last Labour Government were a signal failure and this coalition Government have been a resounding success.
	The Labour Front Benchers talk about Teach First—

Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: In a second, eager beaver.
	Interestingly, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central called Teach First “Labour’s Teach First”. That will be a surprise to Brett Wigdortz, who set it up; it is a charity. It is wholly contrary to the co-operative spirit that the hon. Gentleman lauds that he instantly nationalises
	every worthwhile initiative. Let us not forget that when Teach First was launched, the National Union of Teachers, which seems to be writing Labour’s policy these days, accused “Teach Firsters” of being unqualified. One teacher at the time said:
	“When I first”—
	heard about—
	“Teach First I just thought ‘no way’…My fear was that they were totally untrained teachers.”
	But Andrew Adonis, someone who does know something about state education, pressed ahead and backed, as we back, Teach First, and “Teach Firsters”, who were damned as “unqualified teachers” at the time, are now responsible for securing an improvement in every school in which they operate. They were damned as “unqualified” and introduced by a charity, and they are driving up standards. That proves that we have the best generation of teachers ever in our schools, and it is all a direct result of the initiative of individual teachers and the generous support that we have given, because Teach First has expanded as never before under this Government.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it was the Labour Government who supported the introduction of Teach First and supported its expansion? Will he also confirm that the figures he quoted on an increase in the number of unqualified teachers, which were in a parliamentary answer to me from the Minister for Schools, include people undertaking Teach First who are on their way to qualified teacher status?

Michael Gove: I will happily acknowledge that there are fewer unqualified teachers now, under the coalition, and that it was we who expanded Teach First. What the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central failed to acknowledge when he was asked a direct question by two of my colleagues is that Labour’s record on teacher qualifications was weaker than ours.

Andrew Percy: Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the situation is worse than those figures on unqualified teachers would suggest, because we also saw a massive increase then in the use of cover supervisors, who were often used for very long periods to teach GCSE courses that they had never passed the exams for?

Michael Gove: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He speaks with experience from the front line and he knows that it was under Labour that, unfortunately, there was a growth in the use of cover supervisors in a number of schools. Unfortunately, in tough schools such as the one he helped to turn round we did not have people with the qualities needed to hold the attention of a class and to transform young lives. That is changing now, and one reason for that, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central failed to acknowledge, is that we are introducing a raft of reforms that are helping to improve teaching in all our schools.

Barry Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Barry Sheerman: May I, for a moment, just raise the level of debate, rather than have this ding-dong? We all want well-qualified, well-motivated teachers who are
	continuously professionally developed—that is the truth. We should agree on this across the Benches and get on with it, rather than raking over daft stats from the past.

Michael Gove: I am only too happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who, as ever, speaks sense. However, it was not the Government who brought this motion and it was not me who failed to answer the question politely put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I am enlightening the House in a way that, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench team failed to do. I agree with him about continuous professional development, which is why we are changing the way in which we support teachers, through the establishment of teaching schools. We have 357 teaching schools that have been established. I presume that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central supports that initiative, applauds the teachers who are involved in it and believes it is the right thing to do. It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) backs it when the opportunity comes.
	We are also changing the way in which teachers are trained. The Times Higher Educationhas reported that under its new inspection regime Ofsted pointed out that school-centred initial teacher training—SCITT—is in many cases better than higher education initial teacher training. According to Times Higher Education, 31% of the school-centred initial teacher training centres inspected were outstanding whereas only 13% of higher-education institution centres were. So we are moving teacher training from those institutions that are performing less well relatively—some of them are still “outstanding”—to those that are performing better. That is a real improvement in the quality of teacher training and professional development.
	We have also introduced tougher standards, by which all teachers are judged. We got rid of the fuzzy standards that used to prevail under the previous Government and we have drawn up new, professional standards. They were drawn up by Sally Coates, the head teacher of Burlington Danes academy, in alliance with Joan Deslandes of Kingsford community school, Patricia Sowter of Cuckoo Hall and Sir Dan Moynihan of Harris academies. Again, the question for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and his Front-Bench colleagues is: do they believe that the introduction of these new teacher standards was the right thing to do? Do they support them? Do they back them? Do they recognise that they drive improved performance in the classroom? Do they also recognise that as a result of our changes the quality of teaching is higher than ever before?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) rightly pointed out that we have a tougher Ofsted regime and a more rigorous accountability regime than ever before; it is tougher for someone to prove that they are outstanding. Under Labour 13% of teaching at primary schools and 11% of secondary teaching was outstanding, whereas the latest figures show that under the coalition Government those proportions have risen. The number of outstanding primary lessons has increased by 12% and the number of secondary lessons judged “outstanding” has gone up by a third. So more quality teaching is benefiting more students in more schools as a result of the changes we have made.
	I also hope that the Opposition will applaud the increase in the number of highly qualified graduates from our top universities in our schools. When we came to power only 62% of those entering the teaching profession had a 2:1 or better, whereas the figure now is 71%. So we have a prestigious profession attracting more highly qualified people and transforming more lives.

Simon Hughes: Not only do I have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—the MP for Teach First—but I am still a chair of a primary school governing body and a trustee of Bacon’s college. As such, I can confirm that the view of the head teachers and the governors in my constituency is that the quality of teachers now is better than it has ever been, across the board, and that Teach First has contributed hugely to the inward pressure of new people—although, of course, with educational qualifications they would be better still.

Michael Gove: As is so often the case, my right hon. Friend strikes a balanced and sensible note. He has made the point that under the coalition Government education has improved, and that teachers once damned as “unqualified” by the trade unions and others are driving improvement in our schools. If only we could hear more of him on education and rather less from some in the Labour party.
	It is not just the quality of teaching that has improved; attainment has improved for our very poorest. One of the starkest problems in the education system that we inherited was the gulf between the achievement of the wealthy and that of the poorest in our schools. That gap has narrowed thanks to the teachers in our schools, to whom I, once again, wish to pay tribute today. At key stage 4 we inherited a gap of 27.6 points in exam performance, but that has been reduced to 26.3. At primary we inherited a gap of 21.3 points between the poorest and the rest, and that has closed to 16.8. I hope that everyone in the House would applaud that movement towards helping the poorest children do better.

Ian Austin: To truly tackle the social mobility crisis that exists in our country we need much more radical action than the schemes, no doubt well intentioned, that the Secretary of State is talking about. Will he examine the open access scheme championed by Peter Lampl of the Sutton Trust and consider introducing it for the 100 leading independent schools in our country?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman—I hesitate to call him that because he is increasingly becoming my hon. Friend; he knows what he is talking about and is the son of a head teacher—is absolutely right to say that we need more help from independent schools in improving the state sector. I think that Peter Lampl is a hero, but one of the things that the hon. Gentleman and I both believe in—independent schools helping state schools—would be more difficult as a direct result of official Labour party policy, as it would ban teachers in independent schools who do not have qualified teacher status from helping out in the way we would both want. His aim is noble and his heart is in the right place but he is on the wrong side of the House. I hope he will come over to our side, where logic will inevitably lead him.

Graham Stuart: May I correct my right hon. Friend, because the policy is worse than that? The net effect of this highly scrutinised system of sacking people who do not have QTS will be to take high-quality teachers who make such a difference to the lives of the poorest children out of the classroom. To maintain their living, these teachers will be sent to the independent sector, where doubtless they will educate the children of people such as the shadow Secretary of State.

Michael Gove: The Chairman of the Select Committee is right once again. This is a policy for generating unemployment for excellent teachers in the state sector and giving the wealthy—those who have the advantage of the cash that enables them to pay for an independent education—the freedom to benefit from them. It is also important to recognise that the freedom to employ whoever a head teacher believes to be important and capable of adding value to education is essential to the academies and free schools programme.
	It is important that Opposition Members are not selective in their use of evidence when they talk about academies and free schools, because academic results are improving faster in sponsored academies than in other schools, and the longer schools have enjoyed academy freedoms, the better they have done. In sponsored academies, open for three years and taking advantage of the freedoms we have given them, the proportion of pupils who achieve five good GCSEs including English and maths has increased by an average of 12.1 percentage points. Over the same time, results in all state-funded schools have gone up, which is good, but only by 5.1 percentage points.
	We are clearly seeing academies and free schools generating improved results for the students who need them most. More than that, free schools, overwhelmingly in the poorest areas, have been backed by Andrew Adonis and Tony Blair. Andrew Adonis said that free schools were essentially Labour’s invention and Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, backed them, saying that they were a great idea, explicitly because they were
	“independent schools in the state sector”.
	He backed them because they had all the freedoms of great independent schools, like University College school and others, to do the right thing for their students.

Jonathan Reynolds: Not for the first time, there is a lack of logic in what the Secretary of State is saying. If unqualified teachers are doing such a good job and are so able, why would they find it so hard to achieve formal qualifications?

Michael Gove: If they are doing such a good job, why would the hon. Gentleman want to see them sacked? As far as he and those on his Front Bench are concerned, the only way in which someone can be a good teacher is if a single piece of paper is conferred on them. We believe that the right person to decide who should teach in a school is the head teacher, not the bureaucrats.
	Another point that it is important to remember—I shall be explicit about this point, which was hinted at by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central—is that there is a difference of opinion between the two coalition parties about the future of the policy on academies and free schools. It has been a success so far, one in which we share, and I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats for supporting it.

Tristram Hunt: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Michael Gove: In a second.
	The difference between Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy, however, is not as big as the difference between those on the Labour Benches. In particular, I mean the difference between the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central on one side and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central on the other. We all know that the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished historian of the civil war, and he knows all about a body politic being racked by internal division. What a pity that it is his body politic that is being so racked.
	Let us listen to the cavalier Tristram, talking to Conservative-supporting The Mail on Sunday. He said:
	“What I am saying is if you want to do that”—
	that is, set up a free school—
	“when we are in government we will be on your side. There has been this perception that we would not be, and I want people to be absolutely clear that we are…putting rocket boosters on getting behind parents and social entrepreneurs…We are not going…back”—
	no turning back—
	“to the old days of the local authority running all the schools—they will not be in charge.”
	Three cheers for the cavalier.
	Then the puritan—the roundhead—Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central suddenly popped up a few hours later on the BBC talking about the free schools that he had been lauding just a few hours earlier. He said that
	“you have…a system which allows…irregularities”
	and
	“allegations…because there’s no oversight there.”
	He said that it was a “dangerous ideological experiment”, yet only a few hours before, it was an ideological experiment with which he had fallen in love. One of the flaws in this ideological experiment, he said—

Tristram Hunt: rose—

Michael Gove: In a second—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] No, I think that the House is enjoying this section of my speech. I will conclude it in just a moment.
	The hon. Gentleman said:
	“We are not going to go back to the old days of the local authority…they will not be in charge”,
	but then on Thursday he said that the problem with free schools was that local education authorities had no role in monitoring those schools. Within four days there has been a complete U-turn, a reversal, as the civil war in the Labour party between those who believe in excellence and those who believe in the unions is embodied in one man. In four days there has been one U-turn and no answers. I am very happy to give way now.

Tristram Hunt: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has finally given way. Let me be clear that the difference between our policy and that of the Government is that we believe in social enterprise and innovation but also believe in having qualified teachers in the classroom and systems of financial accountability and transparency, so that we do not end up with the chaos that we saw at Al-Madinah and Bradford. Let me go back to his earlier point, however. When did the division in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on qualified teacher status first emerge? Can he talk us through the history?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions must be brief, however important the point might be to the person who is making it.

Michael Gove: I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in splits, because he embodies one. He is a one-man walking split-generating machine. On the one hand, he is determined to remove schools from the hands of local authorities, whereas on the other he wants to impose them on them.
	I fear that one thing the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate is the fact that academies and free schools face a greater degree of scrutiny than local authority schools. He has argued that we need local authority oversight because the current regime is not enough, but is he aware that academies face an annual audit from the Education Funding Agency? They must have independently audited financial accounts. They must appoint an accounting officer who has personal responsibility to the National Audit Office and, through that office, to Parliament. Those accounts must have a regularity opinion from external auditors that sets out how regularity over income and expenditure has been obtained. Free schools must also undergo their own financial management evaluation, which is counter-checked by the Education Funding Agency. That is regulation.
	What about local authorities, by contrast? The National Audit Office has said:
	“Local authorities do not publish systematic data to demonstrate how they are monitoring schools’ financial management and that they are intervening where necessary.”
	There we have it: academies are properly regulated whereas local authority schools are not, according to the National Audit Office, regulated with anything like the same degree of intensity.
	As laid out in the academies financial handbook, if there is any problem with their finances academies must ensure that they comply with the financial notice to improve and seek consent to any non-routine financial transaction. Local authorities, of course, have similar powers to suspend delegated financial functions, but there is no central record of their doing so in local authority schools, whereas there are many records and examples of academies and free schools being subject to precisely the sort of regulatory oversight that local authority schools lack. For that reason, academies and free schools are better regulated and better protected.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned one particular free school, the Al-Madinah free school, and there were certainly grievous problems there. However, that is just one school with problems; a number of local authority schools, unfortunately, also have the same ranking from Ofsted and have been graded as 4—inadequate—in every conceivable area. He has not mentioned them because he is entirely selective in his use of evidence. He has not mentioned Hawthorn primary school, Oakhill primary school, Newtown primary school, Doncaster Road primary school, St John’s primary school, Stanhope primary school, Long Cross primary school, Wellfield, Roydon, Rosebrook or a number of others. He has not done so because his selective use of evidence has been designed to discredit a programme under which, just a few weeks ago, he said he would put rocket boosters. The problem, I am afraid, is that those rocket boosters have blown up in his face.
	As a historian, the hon. Gentleman should know that excessive reliance on just one source leads to errors. Of course, there have been other historians whose selective reading of evidence has allowed them to make a splash at times in the past, such as Hugh Trevor-Roper, for one, with the Hitler diaries. But although he caused a stir, he also sacrificed his credibility permanently. That is what the hon. Gentleman has done by refusing to acknowledge the brilliant record of free schools overall. He has refused to acknowledge that 50% of new local authority schools have been rated good or outstanding in the latest Ofsted ranking, whereas 75% of free schools have been ranked good or outstanding. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that where it counts, free schools are outperforming local authority schools.

Julie Hilling: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I have forgotten why I wanted him to give way earlier, but on his last point, how many of those free schools are teaching less pupils—[Hon. Members: “Fewer pupils.”]—fewer pupils because they have not filled all their places? My local free school has far smaller class sizes because it cannot fill those places.

Michael Gove: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies to that intervention, may I gently remind him that the Speaker asked for brief opening speeches? There are many Members on both sides of the House who want to participate, so I am sure he is keeping that in mind as he comes to the conclusion of his speech.

Michael Gove: I am bearing that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought it was important that the House was acquainted with evidence, there being a distinct lack of it in the speech from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central.
	One of the things that I wanted to stress is that if the Labour policy is enacted, that will mean that there are people currently teaching in the state sector in academies and free schools who will lose their jobs—people like Anita Zarska, who is a chemistry teacher at the new East London science school, who has a PhD in molecular biology. She would lose her job. Howard Bowden, a graduate of Trinity Cambridge, the same college as the hon. Gentleman went to, is teaching at Batley grammar and has won national awards for teaching. He would lose his job. Jane Macbride at Priory community school in Weston-super-Mare, former head of an Asda sales team, who teaches—appropriately enough—business studies would lose her job.
	In the week when we have discovered, as the Sharon Shoesmith case shows, that when Labour politicians start sacking people in a knee-jerk fashion, the courts can intervene and cost the taxpayer thousands, has the hon. Gentleman consulted his lawyers? Is his policy compliant with the European convention on human rights? Will he ensure that those outstanding teachers who are in our schools now will not be sacked arbitrarily as a result of a policy drawn up simply to appease the teaching unions? The consequence of his policy would be to sack them.
	The consequence of the hon. Gentleman’s policy would also be that independent schools that have joined the state sector through our free school programme
	would be barred from opening their doors, as the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) wants, to every student who wants to join them—schools such as Chetwynde in Barrow, Liverpool college in Liverpool, King’s school in Tynemouth, all of them independent schools and all with teachers who do not have QTS. All of them would be barred from opening their doors to every child as a result of Labour policy.
	What of the contribution of outstanding head teachers from the independent sector who are also helping state schools? What about Richard Cairns of Brighton college, who set up the London Academy of Excellence? What about Stephen Spurr, the head teacher of Westminster school, who is opening a new free school with Harris to help the poorest children? Neither of those have QTS. Both of them are outstanding. Both of them would be barred from helping poorer children under the hon. Gentleman’s policy.
	The policy of the Labour party in the past prevented many intellectually gifted educators from helping children in need because those people were imprisoned in ivory towers. Take a chap I know called Tristram. Tristram was an Oxbridge man; he had a top degree; he was universally lauded by everyone in his field. He was a celebrated media figure. [Interruption.] No, I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman. I am talking about Tristram Jones-Parry. I know the hon. Gentleman thinks it is all about him, but this is not about him. It is about the children who will be denied the chance to get a fantastic education because Tristram Jones-Parry, who has a Cambridge degree in mathematics, was barred from teaching in state schools under Labour and is able to teach in state schools under our policy.
	As a result of our policy, we now have support from Richard Cairns, the headmaster of Brighton college, the best independent school in the country. Katy Ricks, the head teacher of Sevenoaks, has said that recruiting staff, the job of any head teacher, is quite simply about getting the best possible person for the job. FASNA, the organisation that represents those teachers who are most keen on freedom and autonomy in driving up standards, says that head teachers should be trusted to hire the right people for the job.
	Everyone who knows anything about how to improve state education, everyone who backs greater autonomy, backs our Government’s policy. The one person who does not, unfortunately, is the hon. Gentleman. He benefited from great teaching at his private school. It allowed him, as we heard, to make it to Cambridge, but he would deny that teaching to poor children. He got to Cambridge with the help of men and women who did not have QTS, but who had a great degree and a passion for learning, and now he wants to deny that same opportunity to poor children. He knows directly what great teaching in an independent school is and he says that poor children should never have the opportunity to enjoy the same privileges as he did.
	It is the same old Labour party—“Do as I say, not as I do”—a Labour party willing to pull up the ladder from the next generation, a Labour party that has benefited from all the advantages that money can buy and then, when the poor come knocking on the door, saying, “Liberate us from ignorance,” says, “Sorry, no. We’re with the unions. We are not on your side.” It is shameless and that is why I hope everyone on the Government Benches will vote against the Opposition motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There are a large number of Members who want to take part in the debate. We are starting with a time limit of five minutes each. It will be necessary to reduce it if everybody is to get in.

Graham Stuart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. When making decisions about education, one question matters above all others: how will this affect the quality of teaching? That is the prism through which every educational decision should be viewed. A great teacher can make the difference between a child muddling through, struggling or aiming high.
	Research by Professor Eric Hanushek of Stanford university shows that during one year with a very effective maths teacher, pupils gained 40% more than they would have with a poor performer. The effects of high quality teaching are especially significant for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Hanushek found that over a school year, these pupils gain one and a half years’ worth of learning with very effective teachers, compared with just half a year of learning with poorly performing teachers. So that is the prism through which we should look at these issues.
	Before we make decisions in education, another approach is to make sure that we follow the evidence. What assessment has the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made of the quality of teachers without qualified teacher status in the classrooms? He could shake his head when the Secretary of State was speaking, but inevitably people will be sacked from the classroom. We have heard these people come forward. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head now, denying an obvious truth. Teachers without QTS will be sacked from the classroom if that policy is implemented. [Interruption.]
	We have a rigorous Ofsted regime, tough exam results, mapping, peer review, departmental head review, head teacher review—a whole system of accountability to make sure that there is nowhere to hide for the teacher who is not performing. In that context a head teacher has gone out on a limb to recruit someone who is non-QTS. We know, as was not acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman, that the number of non-qualified teachers in the teaching profession has fallen. [Interruption]. We know that the number in free schools and academies as a percentage of those employed has fallen over the past three years. We therefore have a smaller number of teachers who have been through the threshing machine of that accountability system. If they are to have such a person working for them, head teachers will need to be sure that when the inspector comes they can point to exceptional performance. [Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) who barracked and heckled the Secretary of State throughout his speech is attempting to do the same to me. Those teachers, who are necessarily strong and effective teachers, will be fired under his party’s policy. That is the central point.

David Burrowes: On the question of which teacher should be employed, we should not listen to the choices and the whims of the
	hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). We should speak to the head teachers, who hire and fire. They are in the best position to know which teachers are best for their school.

Graham Stuart: I agree with my hon. Friend. The shadow Secretary of State has come into post at exactly the same time as his party has lurched to the left, and he has inherited this policy. I put it to him, as someone who has taught in schools as a non-QTS teacher, who benefited from non-QTS teachers as a pupil and who has suggested in recent days that he might send his children to schools that have inspiring non-QTS teachers in place, that his heart really is not in this.

Tristram Hunt: There is a world of difference between an external speaker coming into a school to explain history, politics or geography and someone in charge of the learning outcomes of an entire class. I would have thought that the Chair of the Education Committee knew that.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman would not answer questions about the teacher who taught and inspired him, but he was more than just a visiting lecturer.
	My children attend an independent school and have non-QTS teachers. I want to ensure that every school can access people who can inspire pupils within a system of accountability. If the shadow Secretary of State told me, “We’ve carried out an assessment and got the evidence, which shows that some head teachers are taking on unqualified teachers just to save money and sticking them in classrooms with low-ability children, which is letting them down”, I would be the first to congratulate him. I would say, “Yes, let’s look at the right policy response, but let’s not sack top teachers who happen to be non-QTS teachers if we can possibly help it.”
	I would even accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument if he could show me, on any kind of evidence base, that widespread numbers of non-QTS teachers are letting down our kids. I put it to him, who has been in post for a matter of days, that there is no such evidence base. On the contrary, the evidence base shows that non-QTS teachers in state schools in some of our toughest neighbourhoods are inspirational. There are often teachers who have left the independent sector, where he went, where I went and where my children go, in order to try to make a contribution in state schools in challenging circumstances. Under the Opposition’s policy, if those people do not put themselves through the many hours required to pass QTS, they will be sacked. That is absolutely wrong. He should not deny the consequences of his policy: it will lead to the removal of outstanding teachers from state school classrooms. It will almost certainly see them turning up in independent schools, where they are needed least, rather than most. That is the central flaw in his argument, and I think that he sees it.
	It is early days in the hon. Gentleman’s new post. I suggest that he has inherited a dreadful policy that is entirely against what he and I believe, which is that we should be transforming education for everyone in this country, and most of all for those from poorer homes who too often have been left behind.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I wondered why Mr Stuart looked startled when I called him to speak, and now I realise that it was because I should have called an Opposition Member. To correct my error, I will now call two Opposition Members before returning to alternating speakers.

Nicholas Dakin: Having been a college principal only three years ago, I bring the perspective of the head teacher to the debate. In the college I led, the sixth-formers would have expected debaters to refer to the motion. I think that they would have found that much of the Secretary of State’s 30-minute speech related not to the motion, but to peripheral issues concerning free schools and the question of regulation. Those are valid areas of debate, but if he had taken the trouble to read the motion, which I think would have been helpful—it is what I would have advised my sixth-formers to do—he would have seen that it states:
	“That this House endorses the view that in state funded schools teachers should be qualified or working towards qualified teacher status while they are teaching.”
	Having listened to the contributions from Government Members so far, one might be forgiven for forgetting the important phrase
	“working towards qualified teacher status”.
	When I appointed teachers, as I did frequently in my 28-year career in education, they either would have teaching qualifications or would be put in a framework in which they could gain them. That was for their benefit and that of their students, and there is a lot of evidence to demonstrate that. I think that any Member who intends to go through the Lobbies tonight ought to look carefully at the motion. If they vote against it, they need to understand what they are doing.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing us back to the motion. If it became Government policy, will he explain what would happen to those teachers currently employed who did not work towards qualified teacher status? Would he want them to be sacked?

Nicholas Dakin: As a practical person and a head teacher, I would give the people employed in my college a framework in which they could get those qualifications, and we could have accreditation of prior learning, assessments and so on. Those people who have not done the job I did will have theoretical views on this, but I know how it is done, because I have done it day in, day out. The people out there know how they are running their schools and colleges, and the people who work in them know what they are doing as well. We trust them, but they need to be in a framework that delivers. We also need to listen to what parents are saying. In a recent YouGov poll, 78% of parents said that they want the teachers teaching their kids to be qualified.
	I have just left a symposium in Portcullis House on the Finnish teaching system. I was reminded that not only do Finnish teachers need a master’s degree in their subject knowledge, but the degree has to deal with pedagogy. That is what teachers need: the knowledge and the pedagogy. That is what I needed when I had
	teachers standing in front of the kids in my college who I had a responsibility to deliver for. I am sure that is what people up and down the land want.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Dakin: I am afraid that I cannot give way because so many Members wish to speak and the Secretary of State was so greedy in using up the time.
	All my experience tells me that essentially there are only two things that really matter in running schools and colleges: the quality of leadership and the quality of teaching and learning. If we get those two things right, all the rest will follow. Of course, just because someone has a piece of paper, whether a postgraduate certificate in education, graduate teacher status or whatever, does not mean that they can necessarily teach, because there needs to be a framework of support in their school to ensure that they learn the skills of the profession.
	To be fair to the Secretary of State, he very much echoed what the shadow Secretary of State said in underlining the importance of teaching as a profession. That echoes what the Prime Minister said quite rightly in 2010, which was that teaching should be a profession. Well, a profession has proper structures for training, qualifications and professional development. That is the framework that delivers high-quality individuals. Within that delivery of high-quality individuals, there will always be people who need appropriate support.
	The Deputy Prime Minister was right when he made it clear that anybody teaching in our state-funded schools should either have qualified teacher status or be on the way to gaining it. I am really pleased that the Schools Minister, who is in his place, despite struggling a little to make this clear in the Westminster Hall debate, made it extremely clear when he appeared before the Select Committee that he was alongside the Deputy Prime Minister on that. That is why I am confident, because they are people of honour, that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Schools Minister and the rest of the Liberal Democrats will be alongside us when we vote for the motion today.

Pat Glass: Over the past week, the Minister for Schools and I have duelled a couple of times on the qualification of teachers and initial teacher training, in the Westminster Hall debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned and in the Education Committee, so much of what I say today will not be unfamiliar to him.
	I do not disagree with the Government and the Secretary of State on all their education policy. I agree with the Secretary of State that we now have in our schools the best quality teaching force this country has ever seen. I also agree that the one single thing that improves standards and outcomes is the quality of teaching; the difference is that I know what it looks like when I see it. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Schools, who last week made it absolutely clear in the Education Committee, that teachers in taxpayer-funded schools should be qualified or working towards a qualification while they are teaching.
	I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister when he spoke about this on Sunday just gone. He said he agreed with many policies on academies and free
	schools but allowing unqualified teachers to teach in state-funded schools was not one of them. That prompts the question as to why he then whipped Liberal Democrat MPs to vote for it in the first place. Is it simply that he has seen the polling and recognises that this piece of Government ideology is not a popular policy with voters and is overwhelmingly rejected by parents?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady’s competence is well recognised. Our party, which is a democratic organisation, recently debated this issue, and I can confirm that what the leader said in his speech last week exactly reflected what the party voted for by a very large majority at our conference in March this year.

Pat Glass: I recognise and respect that. I therefore expect to see the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Lobby with us tonight.
	When the Deputy Prime Minister spoke at the weekend, he talked about schools being set free to set their own school holidays and the times of day when they open and close. Well, I have got news for him: maintained schools have always had that ability. They do not need to be a free school or an academy to do that, nor to employ unqualified teachers. Maintained schools have always had the ability to bring in non-QTS specialists. The person delivering the lesson at the front of the classroom does not need to be a qualified teacher, but the person who designs, differentiates and manages the curriculum, manages the lesson plans and is responsible for individual pupil assessment does need to be a qualified teacher. On that, I absolutely agree with the Secretary of State.

Graham Stuart: rose—

Pat Glass: I am not going to give way any more because there is so little time.
	The history of Labour in office and unqualified teachers shows that in the vast majority of cases, great non-QTS teachers went on to become qualified through the licensed or the classic routes. Government Members say that free schools and academies are now free to employ teachers who have a master’s degree or a doctorate, and is that not a good thing? I am not altogether sure about that. I have a master of science degree, but a working knowledge of maths and statistics does not make me a teacher. Without a bachelor of education degree I would not have the skills and knowledge to understand child development, the science of teaching and learning, how children learn, and classroom management and managing behaviour, or to identify the needs of children with special educational needs and how to meet them. I would not know about differentiation, delivering a programme of study across a range of abilities, or assessment—that is, knowing what a child can and cannot do, and what they need to do next. Important as those things are, I would also not have the credibility and trust of my professional colleagues, of parents, or, more importantly, of young people themselves. Pupils know very quickly who is qualified and who is not, and who is experienced and who is not, and that affects their behaviour and how they learn in the classroom.
	The problem with this Government is that they think anybody can teach. I know from experience that as soon as we move away from the classroom it looks
	really easy, but it is not. Teachers are people who stand up in front of classrooms every day and deliver great lessons. I do not pretend to be a teacher in terms of that definition. Being qualified does not make a great teacher; it takes more than that.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I am glad that Government Members agree with me. As has been said, this is not necessarily about the qualification of teachers. Every teacher does not have to be qualified to deliver a great lesson, but surely good qualification is the basis of a state-run system.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Having anything else leaves our children open to—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

Tristram Hunt: No, I am enthusiastically supporting my hon. Friend.

Pat Glass: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It is very disruptive to have people shouting across the Chamber, particularly from the Government Benches. Those Members may wish to be called in the debate, and if this behaviour persists, they might find that we run out of time before they get called.

Pat Glass: I want to finish by simply saying that having a qualification does not make a great teacher, but it is a damn good place to start.

Simon Wright: Cynics might say that this debate has been put forward by the Opposition to cause mischief, but I welcome the opportunity to promote my party’s policy on how to ensure there is freedom and fairness for all in our school system and to endorse the progress that has been made by the coalition.
	Liberal Democrats believe that all schoolchildren and their parents should receive a core guarantee of what they will get from a state-funded school education, and that includes being taught by a qualified teacher or someone who is en route to being qualified. We want to free schools and teachers so that they can do what they do best while ensuring that parents have the confidence of knowing that their children are taught by a teacher suitably qualified for their vital job. Parents want and expect their children to be taught by good, qualified teachers and to be taught a core body of knowledge. It is fair to parents and to children to expect state-funded schools to meet those reasonable expectations.
	I strongly support much of what the coalition has achieved in giving schools more freedoms. Teachers and schools are being freed up from micro-management and daily guidance notes from Whitehall. The national curriculum is being slimmed down to enable teachers on the front line—those who know best about their pupils’ educational needs—to teach in the way that is most effective for their class. The £2.5 billion pupil premium has been introduced, and head teachers have the freedom to use it in the way they know is best to raise the attainment of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The coalition has quadrupled the number of Teach First graduates and increased bursary levels available to top graduates in subjects including chemistry, biology and computer science.
	Those policies, which deliver freedom for teachers and schools and help to raise the status of the teaching profession, have been delivered only because Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are working together to pursue shared interests in coalition. Nevertheless, it cannot surprise anyone that two coalition partners will not always see eye to eye on every issue affecting our schools. Liberal Democrats have always been clear that teaching is a highly valued profession that requires a solid understanding of educational values and subject knowledge. Teachers up and down the country are called to the purpose of doing all they can to transform the life chances of young people, and great teaching has a theoretical and skills-based foundation.

Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the motion misses what we should be looking for, which is not whether teachers are qualified or not, but whether they are good? Surely he must agree that many qualified teachers, for whatever reason, are simply not up to the job, and yet many teachers who are not qualified are absolutely brilliant. Should we not be getting to the root of the matter in getting those who are great teachers teaching and those who are not out of the profession?

Simon Wright: I agree that qualified status is not the end of the matter, but parents need to have confidence that their child is being taught by a teacher with suitable qualifications. There are also important issues about professional development, which I will address later.
	On-the-job training is crucial, as is an intellectual evidence-based understanding of teaching methods. QTS demonstrates that a teacher has the skills, the qualities and the professional standards that make such a difference to their students’ education. That is why head teachers value qualifications when they recruit, and why the National Association of Head Teachers and the Association of School and College Leaders support the view that schools should employ qualified teachers.
	Of course, there are unqualified teachers who do a really good job in the classroom. We would want to support them in gaining qualified teacher status, and there are several routes through which that can be achieved, according to the needs of the individual. Qualified teacher status is a reliable signalling device for heads wanting to recruit the very best, and a guarantee to students and parents that their teacher has the broad attributes needed to excel in the classroom. However, ensuring that all teachers in state-maintained schools are suitably qualified should not be the extent of our ambition. I have already mentioned our achievements in coalition and the encouragement given to top graduates to go into the teaching professions. There is also further scope to explore how teachers can best be supported to develop at every stage of their career.
	We want innovation, creativity and diversity in the classroom. Liberal Democrats also want minimum professional standards in our schools. It is vital that we continue to free up teachers and schools and drive up standards for all.

Andrew Percy: Does the hon. Gentleman consider a teacher who has QTS and a postgraduate certificate in education to be better qualified than a teacher who has just QTS? There seems to be a bit of confusion about what lies behind QTS.

Simon Wright: I would not say that PGCE is a necessity, despite the fact that I myself studied for it. I think there are lots of routes to qualified teacher status, all of which have different advantages and merits, but, crucially, it depends on the needs of the individual seeking that status.
	On other forms of professional development, we should consider options such as enabling all teachers to build an individual professional portfolio, including the accredited continuing professional development courses they undertake, to progress and support their career in the classroom. The recently announced champions league proposal could get outstanding leaders into those schools that need them most from next year. That could be expanded in due course and applied to proven subject teachers looking for a new challenge.
	As I have said, the Liberal Democrats welcome the innovation, creativity and diversity that the Government seek to introduce in the classroom, but we want minimum professional standards in our schools, too.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Wright: No, I am coming to the end of my comments.
	I would have welcomed the opportunity to support the amendment on the Order Paper. It would have given the House the opportunity to acknowledge the fact—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The amendment has not been selected, so the hon. Gentleman cannot refer to it.

Simon Wright: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that I do not have the opportunity to refer to the amendment, I will not take part in the Division.

Ian Austin: The central point I want to make is that we as a country have to make education our No. 1 priority. We need to drive up results, enhance the status of the teaching profession, recruit the brightest graduates, train them better and insist on higher standards.
	The fact is that not enough young people are succeeding in science, maths or technology, or going on to apprenticeships, particularly in high-tech industries. We are not sending enough young people to university and not enough young people from state schools are going to the best universities. We have to be honest with ourselves, however challenging it may be, that standards and results in too many state schools are just not good enough.
	Britain is falling far behind other countries on basic numeracy and literacy. The OECD has just reported that, on basic skills, the UK is behind not just countries such as Finland, South Korea and Germany, but others such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.
	Some areas in Britain are lagging even further behind. Just two schools out of seven in north Dudley reached last year’s national average with regard to five good GCSEs including English and maths. Six out of 10 across the borough as a whole failed to meet the national
	average. I do not think that any school in the country should be seeing fewer than 70% or 80% of its pupils achieving that level.
	This year, I am pleased to say that results improved at four of those schools, but what shocks me is the extraordinarily wide variation in achievement between schools with similar intakes. Children starting at two schools in Dudley had achieved exactly the same key stage 2 results, yet five years later twice as many pupils in one school achieved better GCSE results than the other.
	Just a few years ago, only a third of pupils at Ellowes Hall school managed to get successful grades; now, more than eight out of 10 do so. It is without doubt the best state school in the black country. If we take into account the value it offers its students, it probably has a good claim to be one of the very best schools in the country. It still has the same kids from the same families and largely the same teachers, but the thing that has changed is that it has a brilliant new head teacher, Andy Griffiths, and there is a relentless focus on standards and discipline. He has motivated the teachers and made the pupils believe in themselves.
	Results are finally improving at Castle High, my old school in the middle of Dudley, under a new head teacher, Michelle King, and Dormston school, which suffered a catastrophic collapse in standards, now has a brilliant new head teacher, Ben Stitchman, who is turning things around.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the best ways of driving up standards in our state schools is to get quality leadership in place. Is that not one of the key aims in driving forward the improvements he has mentioned?

Ian Austin: My hon. Friend is right. What unites all of those schools and others where results are improving is high-quality leadership. Being a great head teacher comes from being a great teacher. They know all about managing behaviour and discipline. They know how to get the best out of pupils, and they set high aspirations and demand high standards. I am concerned that, by not insisting on the very highest standards for teaching, the Government could be weakening the national stock of educational leaders for the future. That is so important, because the quality of teaching transforms opportunities for the rest of pupils’ lives. According to the Sutton Trust:
	“Bringing the lowest-performing 10% of teachers in the UK up to the average would in five years bring the UK’s rank amongst OECD countries from 21st in Reading to as high as 7th, and from 22nd in Maths to as high as 12th. Over 10 years the UK would improve its position to as high as 3rd in Reading and 5th in Maths.?”
	My central point is that standards in too many schools are not high enough, and I do not think it is possible to tackle that by insisting the teachers in state schools should not have to have the very best qualifications.

Rob Wilson: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but what is his evidence base for suggesting that QTS teacher outcomes are better than non-QTS teacher outcomes? I have not heard any evidence.

Ian Austin: My point is that standards are not high enough. We need to get the best graduates into teaching and insist that they are trained as effectively as possible. We must insist on the very highest standards in the classroom.
	We should dramatically expand the work of Teach First. We should agree as a country—every party, the Government, schools, universities, teachers and business—to set an ambition for Britain to produce the best-educated young people in the world. We need a targeted approach based on the London challenge—which transformed education in the capital—with tough targets, the best heads and the brightest teachers for areas such as the black country that are lagging stubbornly behind.
	We should be much less obsessed with a pupil’s age and focus more on their ability. We should ask whether pupils should be moving up each year, regardless of their attainment. We should massively expand Lord Baker’s brilliant work and have a university technical college in every town. We should specialise more at 14 years of age in relation not just to technical and engineering subjects such as those studied in UTCs, but to straightforward, academic subjects, too.
	We have to be honest with ourselves and admit that the current system is not promoting social mobility. The vast majority of senior jobs in professions such as the law, the media, those in the City, the civil service and even politics go to a tiny minority of people from the best private schools and Oxbridge. Sutton Trust research shows that just five public schools send more pupils to Oxbridge than 2,000 state schools—two thirds of the entire state sector.
	Ministers should look at the brilliant work on open access by Peter Lampl, who proposes opening up access to leading independent day schools so that kids from ordinary backgrounds can get into those brilliant schools. Sharing costs with parents would mean that the cost is less than the current cost of an average state school place. Those who say that we cannot afford to do such a thing should consider that failure to tackle this social mobility crisis will cost the UK economy up to £140 billion a year by 2050, or 4% of GDP.
	We need an education revolution in our country. We need tough targets to drive up standards in our schools and we need to transform the status of teaching. We need to promote a new generation of brilliant head teachers and we need more UTCs and greater specialisation. We need radical new measures to open up opportunities that are currently only available to a few youngsters to many more, not just because we should open up access and opportunity as a matter of fairness or because that is the only way to create the new industries and new jobs on which our future prosperity will depend, but because people in places such as the black country are as good as anyone and we should open up for them the opportunities that people elsewhere have taken for granted for decades.

Stephen Metcalfe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It is hard to overestimate the importance of education to the individual and to society. I am therefore grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for the
	changes that he has made to our system. The education revolution that he has driven forward is truly astounding. He should be very proud of his achievements.
	Students get one chance at education and every day counts. It is up to us to ensure that every one of those days is fruitful and productive. To do that, we need to provide an engaging and inspirational learning experience. For that, we need the best and the brightest to see teaching as the career of choice. Teachers need to be dedicated, motivated and appropriately qualified. For the vast majority, that will include achieving qualified teacher status. However, as part of delivering an all-round inspirational education we should not exclude those who do not have qualified teacher status.
	The purpose of education is to impart knowledge; to allow students to access the next level of learning; to give individuals the opportunity to find their place in the world; and, I hope, to inspire people to have a lifelong thirst for learning and knowledge.

Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman says that the purpose of education is to impart knowledge. Does he not think that the training that teachers get through QTS in how to impart knowledge, the psychology behind learning and behaviour management is important in delivering that? Does he not think that it matters that every teacher can control a class and help children to learn? That is what we are talking about today.

Stephen Metcalfe: Yes, those are important skills, but they are not the only skills that one needs to be able to impart knowledge.
	We all have examples of inspirational teachers who have made a difference to our lives. Mine is my fourth-year junior school teacher, Mrs Chapman, at Staples Road county primary. She was an inspiration and I am still in touch with her. However, there are other inspirational people who have shaped our lives, given us an alternative perspective, encouraged us to aim higher or showed us a world that we never knew existed. Those people have something to offer to our education system.

David Ward: How would the hon. Gentleman feel if he turned up at the airport and was told that they did not have a qualified pilot, but they had somebody who was passionate about flying and was really quite good at it?

Stephen Metcalfe: Many of the teachers who do not have qualified teacher status are the most outstanding teachers around. It is for schools, head teachers and Ofsted—those who are in the know—to assess the individuals about whom we are talking. They should not be disqualified just because they do not have the relevant piece of paper. We exclude those people at our peril.
	Do not get me wrong: QTS is an important and valuable qualification that most teachers should have achieved or be striving for. We are trying to free schools from the burden of bureaucracy. As I said, the best person to assess who is the right person to be teaching in their school and delivering an education that best meets the local needs is the head teacher. We need to move away from command and control from the centre. That should include the opportunity of involving excellent teachers who do not have QTS.

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Labour Secretary of State for Education and Skills, said recently:
	“If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them.”
	Does my hon. Friend agree?

Stephen Metcalfe: I agree 100%. We need to be open and transparent about who has what qualifications and we must ensure that there is a rigorous and robust inspection regime, but the motion would exclude Stephen Hawking from even offering to teach a class. He would not be allowed to teach a—[Interruption.] He would not be allowed to teach because he would not have—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are going to have a bit of command and control here. The command from me is that Members are to stop shouting across the Chamber when somebody is speaking. If they want to intervene, they should do so. The control is that if they persist in shouting, they will not be called in this debate.

Stephen Metcalfe: I apologise for responding, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The motion would prevent Stephen Hawking from offering himself as a teacher, unless he got QTS or said that he was studying for it. It would prevent Jessica Ennis from teaching PE, Damien Hirst from teaching art and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) from teaching history. We should consider all the people who might have something to offer our students, but who would be excluded unless they put themselves forward for QTS. I accept that experience and achievement in themselves do not make for a good teacher and that we must never compromise standards, but equally, experience and achievement do not make somebody a bad teacher.
	We need excellent, well-qualified, dedicated, respected and inspirational teachers, but let us not exclude all those who are exactly that just because they have not acquired QTS. If we do, we will fail not only ourselves, but the very people on whom we should be focused: the students.

Bill Esterson: If the Liberal Democrats do not join us in the Division Lobby later to support their own policy, those who voted Lib Dem in 2010 will wonder why they did so, just as they did when the Lib Dems voted for the privatisation of Royal Mail and for the trebling of tuition fees.
	I will talk about the evidence that supports the use of qualified teachers. In his report for McKinsey in 2007, Sir Michael Barber found that although the high-performing systems in Finland, Japan, Singapore and South Korea had very different curricula, teaching methods and school structures, they all made the quality of teaching their first concern. Getting the right people into the profession and giving them the right training were the top two priorities that Sir Michael proposed to improve education. It would be interesting to hear from the Secretary of State how many of those jurisdictions actively encourage schools to employ teachers who have no teaching
	qualifications. A cursory glance at other school systems shows where the priority lies in the most successful countries. The Governments in Finland, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan are raising the bar for professional qualifications, not trying to remove it.
	The Government’s 2010 White Paper also looked abroad for inspiration. It noted that South Korea recruits teacher trainees from the top 5% of school leavers and Finland from the top 10%. Importantly, those recruits receive college or university based training and secure qualifications before they become teachers. In April 2012, the Education Committee published “Great teachers: attracting, training and retaining the best”. It held a follow-up evidence session last month. The original inquiry looked at evidence of existing good practice in the UK. The Committee found that
	“the partnership between schools and universities was often the recipe for successful provision, with a balance of theoretical and practical training vital for any teacher”.
	In short, whether we look at international comparisons or at existing good practice in this country, it is accepted that having highly trained teachers with professional qualifications is the best way to ensure that there are high standards and the best possible education for children. That is what the evidence shows. Parents agree and are overwhelmingly opposed to the expansion in the use of unqualified teachers in free schools and academies.
	This is not a debate about the best way of tackling teaching shortages. We should not be thinking about the quickest way to get new teaching staff in front of a classroom. We should be thinking about how we can get the best teachers and trainees into our schools. The evidence from successful education models around the world, parents, teaching unions, trainee teachers and the party colleagues of the Minister for Schools at conference is clear: improved outcomes in education and incentives for the best candidates to enter teaching both come from having highly qualified teachers who are paid well and trusted more as professionals to do a job that they are appropriately trained to do. The Government’s support for the employment of unqualified teachers presents us with the opposite: less qualified people who are paid less to do a job for which they are not fully trained. I am certain that we should have qualified teachers in all state-funded schools.

Rob Wilson: To be clear, is the hon. Gentleman saying that non-QTS teachers are in some way inferior and get worse outcomes than QTS teachers?

Bill Esterson: That point has been made in a number of interventions and speeches, and the international evidence that I have already quoted is extremely powerful. Those countries with the highest standards and best results have the highest qualified and best-trained teachers. They take people from among the top-performing graduates, and put a premium on the quality of people coming into teaching. That is how to get the best teachers and best outcomes—sorry to use the jargon. Children do best by having the best teachers.
	The Secretary of State makes great virtue of the fact that the link between great teachers and great results for children is unanswerable, but unfortunately that approach is undermined by having unqualified teachers. I am certain that we should have qualified teachers in all
	state-funded schools, which is exactly what the Liberal Democrat conference voted for. If Lib Dem MPs agree with their party on the importance of qualified teachers, they have the chance to show their support. I am afraid that by sitting on his hands tonight, the Schools Minister will not show the support for qualified teacher status that his party voted for.
	When he gave evidence to the Education Committee, the Schools Minister admitted that he was involved in the drafting of that motion, and told us that last year, both he and the Deputy Prime Minister voted for that. It is clear, therefore, that every Lib Dem MP in this Parliament supports the principle of qualified teachers. All they have to do to show that support is vote with Labour tonight and show the public what they believe in. Otherwise, it is just meaningless words.

John Glen: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I was genuinely surprised to see the words of today’s motion, because this debate is based on the fact that fewer than four in every 100 teachers do not have qualified status. If the purpose of the debate is to try to draw out differences between the coalition parties, and sow the seeds of public concern that if free schools and academies expand—I sincerely hope they will—vast numbers of state-educated children will be taught by unregulated, unqualified and unsuitable individuals, it will fail in that objective.
	My view is that free schools and academies provide freedoms for head teachers and leadership teams to employ individuals from a range of diverse backgrounds—perhaps for shorter periods or on an ad hoc basis to suit the developmental needs of their pupils, or, where necessary, to extend the curriculum. It is right to trust head teachers to appoint the staff they need locally, and to take on experts from industry and those with varied skills who sometimes simply may not have ticked the final box before qualifying. The fundamental principle that teachers are more likely than politicians to know their staff and what they need in their school is undoubtedly true.
	Most importantly, academies and free schools will not be free from Government oversight, and the process for becoming an academy or starting a free school is rigorous—in my constituency, several applications have been unsuccessful. If schools get through that rigorous process, Ofsted can come in at a few days’ notice, and Ebacc requirements will involve more and more scrutiny of outcomes. I fear that this debate is really about an obsession with process and uniformity, and discomfort with getting to the heart of education, which is about inspiring young people and securing better outcomes for our children.
	Salisbury has a wide range of excellent schools which each have different requirements from their staff. We are about to gain a university technical college that specialises in science and engineering, and a free sixth form with a broader academic curriculum focused on STEM subjects. We also have three sixth forms that have converted to academies, two of which are nationally leading grammar schools. All five institutions will deliver
	a high-quality curriculum to young people in my constituency, but why should any of them be restricted to a narrower pool of talent on the basis of dogma?
	I was recently contacted by a top academic from Southampton university about its teacher training programme. She noted that one of its graduates had been described as “phenomenal” by Ofsted just 10 days after gaining NQT status. While important skills can be taught and honed on teacher training programmes, those programmes cannot fully replicate raw talent and a passion for teaching, which—among some—is evident in the classroom from the start. In other words, teachers may become properly trained through on-the-job training alone, and it seems unnecessary to make high-quality candidates jump through arbitrary assessment hoops and delays, when their skills are being tested and they can demonstrate them to the head teacher’s satisfaction and secure better outcomes in exams at the end of the year.
	The university technical college that will open in Salisbury in 2015 has developed a partnership with many local employers, such as defence industry employers, the Army, and the university of Southampton. It will provide brilliant teaching opportunities for industry experts on a part-time basis. Those specialist inputs, which come from individuals who will not have all the teaching qualifications, must be valued in our education system.

Richard Fuller: Is my hon. Friend concerned about some of the terminology? We are using the phrase “qualified”, when what we mean is that someone has a qualification. Those he is talking about are qualified, and we want them to educate our children, whether or not they have a particular qualification.

John Glen: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically wise and perceptive point. We must think more broadly about education and not be held back by dogma in our approach on who we allow in the classroom. We know that Ofsted exists and that there is real rigour in the oversight that we expect in terms of outcomes. I fundamentally disagree with the premise and motives behind the motion. The Government have done a lot to raise standards as well as the expectations of pupils and parents. That is about removing Whitehall interference, and demonstrating our trust in head teachers to employ who they need in individual schools, which will have different appetites and needs to suit their different local populations and employment opportunities. It is right that we continue in that way, and I will vote against the motion this afternoon.

Sharon Hodgson: It is the second time this year that I have risen to welcome an intervention from the Deputy Prime Minister. First, I welcomed his intervention on child care ratios, and now I welcome his support of Labour’s position on teacher training. I admit that I have a newfound appreciation of him. Alas, it may not last. Of course, that means the poor Schools Minister is in the unenviable position of having to defend the fact that he defended a policy that he is not now able to defend, without being on the wrong side of his party leader—I think I have that the right way around.
	Even more baffling than the political acrobatics being performed by the Lib Dems is the fact that, in 2013, we are having a debate in Parliament about whether we want the people who teach our children to be trained to do so. Anyone who last week watched the last episode of “Educating Yorkshire” will, after drying their eyes as I did, have been left in little doubt about the value of a great teacher, particularly when it comes to getting the best out of the children who face the greatest barriers to learning. Seeing Mr Burton try everything he could to unlock the ability of Musharaf Asghar to complete his English language oral exam—he eventually succeeded—was inspirational. Mr Burton was able to do that not because he knows a lot about poetry, although I am sure he does, but because he knows a lot about pedagogy. That is the thing about the best teachers: they know how to teach the class in front of them—every individual child or young person, with the myriad challenges they each face—rather than just the subject matter.
	The Secretary of State is undoubtedly a man of great accomplishment with an impressive academic record but, with respect, I would not want him teaching my children. That is nothing personal. If a Nobel prize winner cannot manage behaviour in a class, and if they cannot tailor their teaching to the strengths and weaknesses of each person in their class, their presence is little better than giving a child a textbook and telling them to go away and read it. Schools are not universities, and teachers are not lecturers. Schools and schoolteachers must be there for every child, not just for the most academically gifted or self-motivated.
	I have always thought that teachers perhaps do not get enough training on supporting the one in five children who have special educational needs, either through their initial qualification or their continuous professional development. For the Education Secretary to argue that someone who has had no training is a suitable person to unlock learning for those children is therefore incomprehensible to me.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sharon Hodgson: I am sorry—I cannot because of time.
	I refer the Secretary of State to Ofsted’s report on the Al-Madinah school, which found that children with special educational needs and disabilities were particularly failed by the school, which did not identify them or provide tailored support, leaving them to struggle.
	The Government’s position is not even consistent, because they insist that some members of staff in academies and free schools need QTS—special educational needs co-ordinators. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children—he is not in his place—snuck that one, in his wisdom, past the Secretary of State when he was drawing up the new SEN code of practice. I, for one, am pleased he did so.
	I wanted to raise a couple of other issues but time will probably run out. In a Westminster Hall debate last week, I described in greater detail the deep concerns among universities, not least the university of Sunderland, about the impact that the roll-out of School Direct is having on the future sustainability of teacher training courses. That is not just another financial hit on universities; it is a question of whether we will lose the capacity to
	train the number of teachers we need. Some universities are already considering closing courses or losing experienced staff. The Schools Minister was perhaps more concerned with avoiding explaining his party’s flip-flopping last week, so I hope he can address the issue in his closing remarks today.
	I want to raise a final point as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on art, craft and design in education. Despite the fact that the creative sector is a burgeoning part of our economy and one of our fastest growing exports, just 358 initial teacher education places were allocated for art and design teachers in this academic year, compared with just short of 600 places in 2009. That is much fewer than for the vast majority of other subjects.
	I have more to say, but time has run out, so I will leave it there.

David Ward: This debate is about freedoms, and the wider context is that the Deputy Prime Minister has referred to teachers other than qualified teachers. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Education Committee, who has left the Chamber, spoke of the need for evidence. The Committee has received no evidence in support of free schools or academies—it does not exist, although experts have been to see the Committee. That greater freedoms necessarily lead to improved performance is an ideological belief, but the evidence does not currently exist.
	The Secretary of State is relaxed about the freedom to have unqualified teachers in classrooms, but other freedoms that have been extended to free schools and academies could have much more serious consequences. An internal audit investigation team at the Kings science academy has shown how far that can go. The school is free to have unqualified teachers, but it is also free to appoint a principal with no real management or leadership experience, let alone qualifications. It is free to have unqualified teachers, but it is also free to access £460,000 to pay for temporary accommodation in a former independent school, of which the principal’s father was a trustee. No wonder the school is happy about employing non-qualified teachers. The principal was also free to employ his mother, his sister and his father. I do not know whether they teach, but they were employed without any interviews or applications being required.
	Yes we should trust head teachers, but should we trust them to that extent? Should we trust them to take on suppliers and contractors with no contracts and no procurement process, to fabricate—that is a euphemism—and make out false invoices? Should they be free to do that? Should they be free to access £10 million of Government funding to refurbish a derelict mill owned by the vice-chairman of the Conservative party? It costs about £5 a square foot for warehousing in a mill in Bradford, but that property company, owned by the vice-chairman of the Tory party, is getting £300,000 a year for leasing that building for 20 years, after which the building will revert to the property company. Should head teachers be free to defraud the Department for Education and HMRC by false claims about pupil numbers, about rent paid to a property company owned—surprise, surprise—by the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, and about tax payments?
	The issue is the culture that is in place. That principal was in a situation in which the normal rules do not apply. We are told that there are mechanisms and checks in place to deal with such problems, but when the chaotic and dysfunctional governance arrangements were highlighted, guess who was responsible for dealing with disciplinary action? We are told in a press release from the Department:
	“Any necessary disciplinary action is a matter for the school.”
	I do not trust it to deal with the problems and sort them out.
	The main problem with this whole policy—I opposed academies under Labour and I oppose academies and free schools under this lot—is that the criteria for success are not about raising educational attainment. The criterion for the success of this policy is how many academies and free schools there are. It is claimed that it is a success because there are so many. So when an application is made, the due diligence that we would expect, and that we have a right to insist upon in terms of public accountability, flies out of the window.
	The Deputy Prime Minister is right: children have a right to be taught by a qualified teacher. But there are other rights. As taxpayers, we have a right to robust and rigorous due diligence before these schools are opened. This is not about freedom; it is about the privilege of being exempt from public accountability—these are freedoms too far.

Eleanor Laing: On the understanding that he will speak for two minutes, I call Chris Williamson.

Chris Williamson: Children are our most precious asset, and every child in the country deserves the right to be taught by a qualified teacher or someone who is working towards qualified teacher status. Most people outside the House would be astonished that that is not custom and practice already. Before the general election the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, talked about learning from the best educational systems around the world. I know that a week is a long time in politics, but this is ridiculous. We have seen a complete volte-face by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.
	The Government’s record on education, particularly their ideologically driven free school experiment, highlights the Prime Minister’s political somersault on this issue. The Ofsted report on the Al-Madinah school in Derby, the city that I represent, was absolutely damning. It says that the achievements of pupils were inadequate; the quality of teaching was inadequate; the behaviour and safety of pupils were inadequate; and the leadership and management were inadequate. It says that the school is dysfunctional and has not been adequately monitored, and:
	“Staff have been appointed to key roles for which they do not have the qualifications and experience. For example, most of the primary school teachers have not taught before…large numbers of unqualified staff desperately need better support and training. Arrangements for the training and professional development of staff are woefully insufficient and uncoordinated.”
	What a damning indictment of the free school experiment.
	What next? Will we have unqualified surgeons, whose qualification to operate and take somebody’s appendix out is a steady hand and good eyesight? What about firefighters? I have used a hosepipe, so I must be able to put out fires—absolutely ridiculous. Is it not time that the Secretary of State started putting children before political dogma, and ensured that our children get the education they deserve—an education delivered by properly qualified professional teachers, rather than this nonsense, which is causing so much damage to our education?

Kevin Brennan: I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have spoken since your elevation.
	I congratulate all hon. Members who have participated in this interesting debate. We would have liked to have explored the technical and legal sides of qualified teacher status more, but time was limited, as it often is on these occasions.
	This is essentially a simple debate on a straightforward motion concerning a proposition supported by the majority of Members of this House, so it ought to pass. We have been spared complication by not debating the coalition Government’s position. However, for those interested in the context, that position is still worth checking, if only for its comedy value. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in the history of the House of Commons that a Government have tabled a satirical amendment. I will not go there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you would rule me out of order if I did. What we have is confirmation of what I said at the outset, namely that the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues believe that
	“all schools should employ teachers with Qualified Teacher Status”.
	If they believe that, the motion should pass.

Damian Hinds: rose—

Chris Skidmore: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I will make a little progress first because of time, but I might take an intervention later.
	There are not many Liberal Democrat colleagues here, but I welcome those who have turned up. Being asked, as I understand they have been, not to support the Opposition motion—one hon. Gentleman said he was not going to support it—is not good for their health. It must drive them to distraction to be asked to perform such feats of intellectual and political contortion of believing one thing and voting for another just to save the blushes of the Tory Secretary of State for Education. He is not in his place for the winding-up speeches, despite taking half an hour of our time earlier on.
	The Secretary of State is happy to trash, on a daily basis, the Liberal Democrats’ fundamental principles and beliefs on education policy, yet they have to turn up to bail him out. There can be no more tortured example of that than the Minister for Schools himself, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). [Interruption.] I welcome the compassion from Opposition Members. The week before last he came before this House and stoutly and enthusiastically defended the policy of allowing non-qualified teachers to teach in our taxpayer-funded schools. In fact, he spoke with such passion and conviction that I understand from press reports that some of his
	Conservative colleagues in the coalition actually believe he meant what he said—they took him at his word. He is shaking his head, but I read it in a newspaper.
	Then, the Minister’s right hon. Friend, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, let it be known that he disagreed with his other right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. I know they bear a striking resemblance to each other, but they must surely be two different people. When the Schools Minister heard what his leader had said, he had a slight problem. Did he, in fact, still agree with himself on whether teachers should be qualified? Last week in Westminster Hall and in the Education Committee, we got an answer of sorts: he had agreed with himself all along; when he came to the House he was not telling us what he believed, but what his Tory Secretary of State boss believed. Some months earlier, we were told, the Schools Minister had proposed a motion to the Liberal Democrat conference—[Interruption.]—I welcome the Secretary of State back to the debate, and I apologise for mentioning him in his absence—but when we checked this, it turned out he had not proposed a motion at all, although he claimed he was involved in its drafting.
	I know that the Schools Minister is a very, very clever man. He has a first-class degree from the university of Cambridge.

Tristram Hunt: Double first.

Kevin Brennan: As my hon. Friend reminds me, and as the Schools Minister insisted on reminding us in Westminster Hall last week, he has a double first from the university of Cambridge. But what I had not realised until now was that having a double first meant he was so clever he could hold two completely opposite beliefs in the same brain at the same time. [Laughter.]

Chris Skidmore: rose—

Kevin Brennan: In a moment. I think the House is enjoying this bit, as the Secretary of State might say.
	And he can do that without experiencing any of the consequent anxieties that mere mortals such as us would suffer in that turbulent and contradictory mental state.

Chris Skidmore: I believe that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)also holds a double first-class degree.
	The motion talks about
	“working towards qualified teacher status”.
	Will the hon. Gentleman give a time frame? Is it one year, two years, three years, 10 years? In other words, it could mean non-qualified teachers still working in schools, just as the 18,500 did under the Labour Government.

Kevin Brennan: We would have to clear up the Government’s mess and think about what the time frame should be, but without giving anyone the sack, we would require all teachers to achieve QTS in a reasonable time, and unlike this Government, we would negotiate and consult.
	The Schools Minister can believe that teachers should not have to be qualified and profess that view in the House of Commons with impressive conviction one week, and then believe that teachers should be qualified and say so with equal conviction the next week. It is a remarkable, but not unique pathology, at least not in science fiction, because there is a creature in “Star Trek:
	Deep Space Nine”, which I am sure the House is aware of, called Odo the Shape-Shifter, who can alter his shape according to circumstances—for example, by appearing to be a human—until the end of the day, when he dissolves into a bucket in his natural gelatinous form in order to rest, ready to emerge the following day in whatever shape is deemed necessary by the circumstances. I say to the Schools Minister: that might be okay for a science fiction character, but extreme shape-shifting does not constitute statesmanship.
	It need not be like this. I told the Schools Minister last week that, having performed a careful textual exegesis of the coalition agreement, I could find no reference—not one reference anywhere in the document—to the Liberal Democrats agreeing to allow unqualified teachers in our schools. I wish more Liberal Democrat MPs were here for this. It is not in the coalition agreement. I have some experience of dealing with Liberal Democrats in coalition, having helped to put together the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in the Welsh Assembly in 2000, when I worked for Rhodri Morgan, and I can tell the House that the idea of their agreeing to something that was against their own strong beliefs and the professed beliefs and policy of their own leader and which was not in the coalition agreement would have been unthinkable. It is, therefore, simply a mystery to me—and it must be a mystery to them too—how they were dragooned into supporting this policy and into rejecting an amendment that would have put this right and put policy in line with Liberal Democrat policy. The policy was not part of the coalition agreement, but obviously the result of some backroom deal between the Schools Minister—

David Laws: indicated dissent.

Kevin Brennan: Oh, the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, so he is not responsible. We would like to know who is. It is a bit of a mystery. Some mystery character from the Liberal Democrats and the Education Secretary did a deal to introduce a policy that was not in the coalition agreement and which was against Liberal Democrat fundamental beliefs and principles. Why, then, did they agree, and will they now support our motion, which endorses their professed policy and does not breach the coalition agreement? If they do not, no one—not least parents and teachers—will believe a word they say about education at the next general election.

David Laws: We have had a fascinating debate today and, as I will show in a moment, we have learned quite a lot about the inconsistencies in the Labour party’s position on these matters. Let me first pay tribute to a number of the hon. Members who have spoken today, including the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward). I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), who spoke today for the first time as the schools spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. He set out our position on this matter clearly and effectively, and I agree with everything he said.
	We also heard a fantastic speech from the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who I have always previously thought of as a Brownite. He morphed today into something of a Blairite and for a moment, I thought, almost into something of a Goveite, until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State leaned over to tell me that to contemplate a voucher system to allow people to move from the state sector to the private sector was too radical even for him.
	Finally, to cap it all, we had a marvellous contribution from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who was so full of praise for the Deputy Prime Minister that, for a moment, I thought she was going to make an application to join the Liberal Democrats. The offer is still open to her if she would like to take that opportunity while there is still room on our party’s Benches. Sadly, the excellent contributions from the Back Benches were not matched by those from the Opposition Front Bench, although I accept that the shadow Schools Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), has one or two good jokes.
	Through the contributions from our Back Benches and from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we exposed some pretty substantial holes in Labour’s position. First, let me deal with today’s version of the West Lothian question, which was posed very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). They asked an interesting question at the beginning of the debate, but they got no answer. That question, to which we have still not had an answer, was: why, if Labour Members are so keen on qualified teacher status, was the number of unqualified teachers thousands higher when the Labour Government were in power than it is today? I have the figures here. In 2005, when Labour was in power, there were 18,800 unqualified teachers in state-maintained schools. That figure is now down to 14,800. If Labour Members are so passionate about this, and if they want to join my party in its strong views on it, I think that they owe it to the House to answer the question put to them earlier. Why, if they are so keen on qualified teacher status, were there so many more unqualified teachers when Labour was in power?
	I have a second question for Labour Members. Of course the hon. Member for Cardiff West is able to have some fun by pointing out the responsibilities that come with government and the need for compromises in coalition. It is rather more difficult to explain how a party that is not in coalition seems incapable of having just one position on these matters. The second version of the West Lothian question that we must ask today is the Stoke-on-Trent Central question. Even without the pressures of coalition, the Labour Education spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), seems able to hold in his mind two completely contradictory views, not only on qualified teacher status, important though that is, but on the whole issue of free schools. Will he explain that?
	Only a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman was saying that the entire free school programme was a
	“vanity project for yummy mummies”.
	A matter of only months later, there he was in The Mail on Sundaysaying, “Let us have more free schools”. When it comes to contradictions in policy, to holding
	two different views in one’s mind at the same time and to double first-class intellects, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State will stand up at the Dispatch Box to explain why his party leader was saying to the trade union conference in September this year:
	“Let’s be clear we are not going to have new free schools under a Labour Government”?
	He could not have been clearer—until the shadow Secretary of State intervened just a matter of weeks later to say in his statement to The Mail on Sunday, “Let’s have more”.
	While we are in this mood for honesty and transparency, let the Labour party have the guts to come to the Dispatch Box and explain its policy on free schools. Suddenly, the Labour Front-Bench team has a fascination with discussing matters among themselves. What are they discussing? Is it the weather, or is it the position of the Labour party on free schools? We would all like to know whether the policy is one from Doncaster North or from Stoke-on-Trent Central—or as described in The Mail on Sunday. None of us know.
	It is all very well for the shadow Schools Minister to mess around with his press cuttings, read through the coalition agreement late into the night and tease Ministers about the responsibilities of government, but the Labour party cannot even agree with itself. The shadow Education Secretary cannot even agree with himself! We cannot get agreement even in one head. We then heard the shadow Schools Minister having the gall to say that he was confused about these things and had to look through the coalition agreement to discover what my party’s policy was, but why does he need to do that? Whatever happened to the research department in the Labour party?
	We have held our position on qualified teacher status for as long as this party has been around. We held a debate on it at our spring conference in March this year. We put out a press release after the debate. It was no state secret; it said this in the headline:
	“Every child should be taught by a qualified teacher.”
	As I say, that was in a Lib Dem press release in March, and it was reported in the Times Educational Supplement in the same month. It was commented on by the Department for Education itself, so what on earth was the shadow Schools Minister doing on that weekend of the Liberal Democrat conference? [Interruption.] I know he was not the schools spokesman for the Labour party at that time, but surely he was paying attention. Why is the Labour party so incompetent these days that it has to wait until October—eight months after our debate at conference and eight months after the publicity in the press—before it comes to a realisation on these matters? Labour is a totally incompetent and totally ineffective Opposition.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?

David Laws: I will in a minute.
	The question for today should not be about the recent position of the Liberal Democrats, which is entirely consistent and has not been kept a secret. I invite both the shadow Schools Minister and the shadow Education Secretary, who seem to need research support, to come to the Liberal Democrat conference free in the future. They can come in the autumn for next year’s debate. Then we will not have this shambolic embarrassment for the Labour party suddenly discovering our policy eight months after we passed motions at our conference.

Simon Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

David Laws: I will give way briefly to my right hon. Friend.

Simon Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is slightly surprising that a party that has twice been in coalition with us in Scotland and once in Wales does not yet appear to understand—whatever the level of their degrees—that two parties in coalition have some things they agree on, but do not agree on other things, which are independent policies?

David Laws: As ever, my right hon. Friend is exactly right. Of course there have to be compromises on these matters.

Chris Williamson: rose—

David Laws: I have only a minute left.
	The vast majority of state-funded schools in this country still require qualified teacher status. I have no doubt that there are people on the Conservative Benches who would see that the logic of their policy means that this should be applied to all state-funded schools. They accept that there have to be compromises; they understand that and they do not have difficulty with it. What we have found today is that the parties in coalition accept their responsibilities and that the Labour party is completely incoherent, hiding behind this matter to cover up the embarrassment of its own lack of policies. We will not be blown off course. We will continue to deliver a better education system. We will work together closely in Government as we have since May 2010, and we will go on delivering the reformed and improved education system for which all of us on the Opposition Benches have been working since that date.
	Question put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 229, Noes 263.

Question accordingly negatived.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that during the Division, no Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament voted against the motion—not even the Minister for Schools, who spoke from the Dispatch Box against it. Is that in breach of the “voice and vote” provisions of “Erskine May”?

Eleanor Laing: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the way in which individual Members decide to use their right to vote is not a matter for the Chair.
	I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion relating to the designation of the UK Green Investment Bank. The Ayes were 290 and the Noes were 22, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Probation Service

Sadiq Khan: I beg to move,
	That this House applauds the important role of the professional Probation Service in keeping the public safe; recognises that more needs to be done to break the cycle of reoffending; notes that, without parliamentary approval, the Government plans to abolish local Probation Trusts, commission services from Whitehall, fragment the supervision of offenders on the basis of their risk level, and hand over supervision of 80 per cent of offenders to private companies; deplores the fact that under the Government’s plans supervision of dangerous, sexual and violent offenders may be undertaken by inexperienced and unqualified staff and by companies without any track record in this area, without any piloting or independent evaluation, all of which is taking unnecessary risks with public safety; and calls on the Government to suspend the national roll-out of its plans until evidence is made public that its proposals to reduce re-offending do not put public safety at risk.
	It is great to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Our probation services work tirelessly below the radar with offenders in prison, with those released from prison and with those given community sentences, doing their best to rehabilitate those people back into lawful life as good citizens in society. Probation, by and large, works, as 128 Members of Parliament agreed when they signed early-day motion 622 last year, praising the probation service for its award-winning performance, including the former Minister with responsibility for probation, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who I see in his place.
	The probation service might not work as well as we would all like it to do and we need to do more to reduce reoffending rates, which are still far too high. That is one reason why we support the Government’s moves to introduce supervision for those who receive a prison sentence of less than 12 months, and through the prison gate supervision as well. This debate is not about status quo versus change. This is about good, evidence-based, tested change versusideologically driven, untested, reckless change. The Government know, as do we, that probation works because those supervised have lower reoffending rates than those not supervised. That is why they are extending supervision to those with sentences under 12 months.
	However, we do not believe that what the Government are proposing is the right way forward—abolishing local probation trusts, commissioning services directly from Whitehall, imposing a payment-by-results model on the system, and fragmenting supervision on the basis of risk levels. Implementing half-baked plans in a rushed manner is a gamble with public safety. If something goes terribly wrong or, God forbid, tragically wrong, public confidence in our criminal justice system is undermined. Ministers should not just take my word for it. According to the front page of The Guardian yesterday, in the past few weeks—[Interruption.] I hear the Lord Chancellor groaning because the chairs of Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire probation trusts had the temerity to write to him and warn him that he should delay probation privatisation or risk deaths. I remind the House that he may have 12 months’ experience in his job; they have more than 12 years’ experience in theirs. I know who we trust in relation to probation. That is why we should be cautious about making changes to probation. Neither the probation
	service nor the Opposition have anything against change, but new ways of working should be tested first to see what works and what does not work.

Elfyn Llwyd: Following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, which I agree with, does he not find it strange that the Government’s own internal risk register says that there is an 80% risk that the Government’s plans will lead to an unacceptable drop in operational performance? Does he also find it surprising that the Government will not allow us to see it?

Sadiq Khan: Either the risk register says there is an 80% risk, which should alarm us, or we should be alarmed at the Justice Secretary not publishing the risk register so that we can see for ourselves what the Ministry of Justice’s own officials say. The MOJ agrees with us that the proposal should be tested first. Pilots were set up in the Wales, Staffordshire and West Midlands probation trusts. The MOJ’s press release from 25 January 2012 trumpeted, “World leading probation pilots announced” and quoted the excellent then Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate, as saying:
	“These ground-breaking pilots will for the first time test how real freedom to innovate, alongside strong public, private and voluntary sector partnerships, could drive significant reductions in reoffending by those serving community sentences.”
	The key word, of course, is “could”. This was a test—one could say a ground-breaking pilot—but what did the current Justice Secretary do in the first week in his job, just nine months later? He pulled the plug on the pilots, opting for full national roll-out, declaring war on evidence in the process. As both judge and jury, he decided that the plans will reduce reoffending, without bothering to wait for any evidence. The headlines generated were, in his view, worth the gamble with public safety.

David Burrowes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I shall make some progress first.
	The Justice Secretary seems to come out in a rash at the mere suggestion that he should pilot the plans. Back in January, when I challenged him on that, he put his gut before hard facts and evidence when he said:
	“Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]
	That from the man who brought us the Work programme. He will forgive me if I do not base my opinions on what we should do with a probation service employing thousands, supervising hundreds of thousands and serving millions on his hunch, because his hunch led to billions being spent on a Work programme that performed so badly that someone who was unemployed stood a better chance of being in work after six months if they had not been on it. The Public Accounts Committee’s verdict on the Work programme was that
	“providers have seriously underperformed against their contracts and their success rates are worse than Jobcentre Plus”.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: Fast forward two years and the same model has resurfaced in probation, but this time the fallout from failure is of an altogether different
	magnitude—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am extremely generous in giving way to colleagues on both sides of the House. It is just a shame that it took an Opposition day debate to drag the Justice Secretary here to discuss his plans, which we are quite keen to scrutinise. I will make some progress before giving way.
	The Economist hit the nail on the head when it stated:
	“If the work programme fails, the cost is higher unemployment; if rehabilitation of offenders fails, the cost is worse: more crime. Which is why those now-disregarded pilots were set up in the first place.”
	As if that is not criticism enough, the article goes on to refer to the Justice Secretary’s plans as “half-baked”.

David Burrowes: I know that we have had a bit of political knockabout, but can we clarify what we agree on? The right hon. Gentleman says that he is in favour of change, but on the previous Government’s watch I did not notice any change in the appalling reoffending rate for short-sentence prisoners, which was some 60%. Does he not welcome the fact that short-sentence prisoners will now have statutory supervision for 12 months to drive down reoffending for the benefit of local communities and, indeed, for offenders?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman has some audacity. The Conservative party voted against the Offender Management Act 2007, in which we tried to change how probation works. Which voting Lobby did he go into? Was he with us? No, he was not, so I will take no lectures from him on our plans to reform probation.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The right hon. Gentleman quoted rather selectively from the Public Accounts Committee report—I know because I am a member of the Committee. One of the points we were keen to make was that we were talking about people in a long-term relationship with providers. We had to take a very balanced decision on the success of the programme after two years of engagement with people who had been unemployed for a long time and needed a lot of help. He should look at the Committee’s full conclusions, in which we said that the direction of travel was positive.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Lady is just wrong. I am happy for her to go and get the report and quote what it says, but I have a copy here and I have read it. I will refer to it again in a few moments, so she can correct me again if she thinks I am wrong, but I know that I am right, because I have the report here.

Andrew Gwynne: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that these changes will lead to increased cherry-picking by the new companies and agencies, which will want to deal with the offenders who are easiest to manage but will park on one side those whose cases are more complex and who have multiple needs?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend has answered the last intervention. What happened with the Work programme was that the big boys cherry-picked those who were easy to get into work, and those who were not had more chance of succeeding with Jobcentre Plus. He is right to remind the House that the probation service works with people who have done poorly outside prison. They might have problems with mental health, alcohol and
	drug-dependency, or with numeracy and literacy. Those are the people our professional probation service works with who will not be cherry-picked by the big boys that the Justice Secretary wants to give the contracts to.

Seema Malhotra: My right hon. Friend has talked about the importance of partnership working and its success lying in agencies working together effectively. Does he agree that the Government’s proposals go against the grain of everything we know and could not only create artificial divides between public and private providers but freeze out voluntary sector providers who have great and important areas of expertise—for example, in working with women offenders?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend has paraphrased what the chief inspector of probation, the probation trusts and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations have said, which I will come to shortly.

Caroline Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I would like to make some progress first, if that is okay with the hon. Lady.
	Over the past few days, the Justice Secretary has claimed that the pilots in Peterborough and Doncaster prisons show that his plans work. If he is honest with himself, he will know that that is nonsense. Those pilots are not only completely different from his plans for probation but are nowhere near to finishing, let alone being evaluated, although the interim results show that they are far from being a huge success. He should know better.
	We must not let the Justice Secretary pull the wool over our eyes by saying that only low and medium-risk offenders will be in the hands of G4S, Serco and their ilk, as though only those caught stealing chocolate bars will be in their hands. Risk level is not directly related to the original crime committed. Offenders rated low and medium-risk include those convicted of domestic violence, burglary, robbery, violence against the person, sexual offences, and much more. I asked the Ministry of Justice how many offenders would be covered by these ratings and how many would be transferred over. It could not tell me how many of the 260,000 offenders supervised by the probation service are high, medium or low risk. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker! However, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a wonderful thing. Using FOI, we have uncovered that the number of medium and low-risk offenders who will be handed over to the likes of G4S and Serco is 217,569.

Karen Buck: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then to my hon. Friend.

Caroline Lucas: That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman and I am grateful. He spoke about the higher reoffending rates for those sentenced to less than 12 months. Is not that an argument in favour of extending the good practice of the probation service in allowing it to take over that area rather than contracting it out?
	The probation service is currently meeting or exceeding its targets, so if we let it work in that area as well, it can do equally well there.

Sadiq Khan: One would have thought that because the Justice Secretary is saying that we should extend supervision to those who have received a sentence of less than 12 months, he accepts that probation works and that the probation trust are doing a good job, but no: he is abolishing the probation trusts and giving the big boys in the private sector responsibility for supervising those offenders. His argument is illogical.

Karen Buck: I have met officers from the London probation trust who are most concerned about the arbitrary distinction between serious and less serious offenders. They point out that particularly given the nature of people’s problems, which my right hon. Friend outlined—perhaps mental health problems or drug and alcohol abuse—there is a fluidity between less serious and more serious offenders, with people not easily defined as being in one category or the other. They fear that very serious offenders may fall through the cracks because of that arbitrary division.

Sadiq Khan: The last two interventions have shown that there is clearly more expertise among Opposition Members than Government Front Benchers. Our FOI questions uncovered that in London 29,813 offenders will be given over to the likes of G4S and Serco. In Surrey and Sussex, 7,313 offenders will now be supervised by the experts that are G4S and Serco.

Gavin Shuker: rose—

Sadiq Khan: Let me make some progress, if that is okay, and then I will give way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) is right, because compounding this situation is the unnatural carving up of responsibility for offenders on the basis of risk. The public sector will keep the very highest-risk offenders—the Justice Secretary clearly does not trust G4S and Serco with them—and the private sector will have the rest. He does not get it. Again, my hon. Friend is right: risk is not static. In one in four cases, risk levels fluctuate. Each time someone’s risk level fluctuates, bureaucracy and paperwork is involved, but we cannot afford for this to be a slow or cumbersome process, because when risk levels escalate, they tend to do so rapidly. They might stop taking their medication or a relationship might break down, leading to them becoming, overnight, a danger to themselves and others, so the process needs to be swift if the appropriate measures and support are to be put in place.
	Can we really see the police working as closely with private companies as they do with probation trusts? Probation trusts often have on-site access to police record computers, which are crucial in assessing, monitoring and supervising offenders. Can we really see the police giving private companies the same access?
	Who decides the risk? The Government claim that the decision will be taken by the new national probation service, but the Justice Secretary does not get it. The national probation service will not have a day-to-day personal relationship with offenders, so how will it know? His plans will be clunky, cumbersome and prone to errors, with cases falling between two stools.

Gavin Shuker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He makes the point brilliantly that the issue of low, medium and high risk is one not just of fluctuation, but of staff retention and ability effectively to manage the case load. What will happen in the rumps of the probation services that will be left over—many of whose employees have performed excellently throughout—when they are dumped with the most difficult cases, day in, day out, for 10 or 12 hours a day?

Sadiq Khan: We know what will happen: when those offenders cherry-picked by the private sector do better—which they will tend to do, because they will be easier to rehabilitate—the Justice Secretary will say that the public sector is failing because the offenders who will be more difficult to rehabilitate will not be doing as well. We have seen that happen before.

Steve Rotheram: Does it not strike my right hon. Friend as a bit odd that a Government so hellbent on apparently reducing bureaucracy have come up with a half-baked idea of creating additional bureaucracy by fragmenting the system into two bodies? Does that not create uncertainty in grey areas in which some individuals may get lost in the system?

Sadiq Khan: That is what the Justice Secretary’s own risk register says, but he is not willing to publish it so that we can all see for ourselves that he is refusing to follow his own Department’s advice.
	The idea that the national probation service and the private companies will work anything like as closely together under the new system as offender management teams work is laughable. The chief inspector of probation has said:
	“Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector…will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public.”
	The chief executive of Hertfordshire probation trust, Tessa Webb, has said:
	“We’re very concerned about separating offenders out between low and high risk. Things don’t work like that. We think there should be a coherent, single organisation.”
	Do Members really think that G4S and Serco will hold up their hands if something goes wrong? They did not with electronic tagging or the transfer of prisoners. If anything goes wrong, who will get the blame? The national probation service. There is no risk for the big private companies and no taking of responsibility—just a nice little earner.
	There is a risk, however, to the public. As has been said, according to the press, the MOJ’s own risk register raises serious questions about the plans. We would think that the Justice Secretary would want to reassure the public by publishing the risk register, but he is refusing to do so, which in itself raises a number of questions.

Richard Graham: Can we just agree that 600,000 crimes a year are committed by people who have already broken the law and that that is of huge cost to all our constituents and costs taxpayers about £10 billion? Does the shadow Secretary of State not agree that something must be done and that, surely, statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the
	community—for the first time ever—of people who reoffend and have been sentenced for fewer than 12 months must be a huge step forward?

Sadiq Khan: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go back to the beginning of my speech, I would be happy to do so—this is one of the problems when Members read a hand-out from the Whips—but I have already answered that question.

Steve Brine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I know that a lot of work has gone into the hand-outs, but let me make some progress.
	Another concern is that the big multinationals will dominate, just as they did in the Work programme, because they are the only ones that have financial clout. Smaller companies and charities will be used as bid candy to sweeten the less palatable bids of the big corporations. People should not take my word for it; the deputy chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Ben Kernighan, has said that
	“under its most significant public service reform so far, the Work Programme, many charities have found themselves squeezed out by large commercial providers. In the interests of helping ex-offenders who could benefit from charities’ expertise, the government must ensure the mistakes of the Work Programme are not repeated.”
	Nothing has persuaded me that those mistakes will not be repeated.
	Our concerns do not end there. Another £600,000 a year of the Ministry’s budget will go to companies that have let us down before over electronic tagging, Olympic security, prisoner transport and the Work programme. Those companies will be beyond the scope of freedom of information requests, which will do nothing to lessen the chances of fraud or irregularities.
	We are also concerned about the length of the proposed contracts. The Official Journal of the European Uniondocument states that the contract lengths will be between seven and 10 years, with an option to extend them to 13 years. The estimated value of each contract is between £5 billion and £20 billion. Imagine what great work the public sector could do if it was awarded similarly long contracts and such stability, rather than having a year-to-year, hand-to-mouth existence.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that local charities in my constituency are doing good work with offenders. However, those charities will not be able to bid for the contracts because of their size and complexity. In the past few weeks, the large companies have tried to sign up the charities as providers. Effectively, the large companies are becoming middlemen in the delivery of the service.

Sadiq Khan: What my hon. Friend describes is a repetition of what happened with the Work programme. Small companies, charities and voluntary groups are used by the big boys as bid candy to get the contracts and are then elbowed out. We saw that with the Work programme and we will see it again in probation.
	Do Members know who will be able to bid? G4S and Serco. The allegations against both companies are so serious that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating them, and yet the Justice Secretary is refusing to rule
	them out of the bidding process. By the way, there is no obligation for the staff of those companies to be trained or experienced in this area. Those companies have no track record of providing such services.
	We are not confident in the ability of the MOJ to procure the contracts, given its poor track record. Last year, we had the scandal of court translators under this Government’s watch. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is busy reading her texts, but I will read what the Public Accounts Committee, of which she is a member, said of that debacle. She can correct me at any stage. It stated:
	“The Ministry was not an intelligent customer…The Ministry failed to undertake proper due diligence…The result was total chaos…the Ministry has only penalized the supplier a risible £2,200.”
	There is no guarantee that the big private companies will not run rings around the MOJ yet again.

Jim Cunningham: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for being a little late for the debate. Is not the picture that is unfolding of this Government that they are the friends of the private sector who see the state as a golden calf that they can milk when it suits them? This proposal is not in the public interest and it is not in the taxpayer’s interest. G4S wants to be considered, but it has some problems in South Africa at the moment.

Sadiq Khan: The question that our constituents are asking is: why are the Government so keen to suck up to the big and powerful?

Jackie Doyle-Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: Let me make some progress.
	The Justice Secretary would like us to believe that the companies will not be paid unless they deliver, as if payment by results means payment only by results. In fact, nearly the whole fee will be paid to the private companies regardless of the results. Private companies are intent on squeezing the fraction of the payment that is dependent on results as close to zero as possible. The Government are so keen to suck up to the big companies that they have caved in. So much for payment by results. No doubt the Justice Secretary will claim that he is doing only what the Offender Management Act 2007—which the Conservatives voted against—gave him power to do. In fact, that Act established local probation trusts, empowering them to commission services locally from whom they see fit. It was not about abolishing local probation trusts or commissioning services directly from Whitehall.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) was at the time the Minister responsible for the legislation, and he knows exactly what it was for. [Interruption.] I can hear some chuntering but do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not putting me off. In 2007 my right hon. Friend said that
	“there will also be a need for local probation trusts to act not just as service deliverers but as commissioners of services from the voluntary sector, or from others, providing a proper service to help prevent reoffending at local level.”

David Hanson: I feel a slight ownership of this issue as I was the Minister who took the Bill through the House of Commons in 2007. Is my right
	hon. Friend aware of Pepper
	v.
	Hart, whereby what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box counts as legal interpretation? At that Dispatch Box, I mentioned
	“trusts remaining public sector-based and delivering services at the local level, and with support from regional commissioners and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 353-4.]
	Are the Government using the legislation in a false and inappropriate way?

Sadiq Khan: I have read carefully in Hansard what my right hon. Friend, as well as the Under-Secretary of State at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), and Baroness Scotland said in 2007. The Justice Secretary’s power was supposed to be limited, with the Justice Secretary stepping in only when a probation trust failed. It was not to be used to abolish all those probation trusts, and for him to be the sole commissioner, which is what he wants to do—and, by the way, using the Department’s own measure, none of the trusts are failing. There is no justification for the Justice Secretary to do what he is doing.
	If the Justice Secretary, his Ministers or his Government said they were abolishing the whole existing probation landscape to save money, there would be a sort of logic to it, but they cannot even say that. The MOJ made an impact assessment of the plans—do hon. Members know what it said? It said:
	“The cost will be dependent on the outcome of competition”.
	The Government cannot say how much the plans will cost, let alone how much they will save. You could not make it up!
	Where are the Liberal Democrats on this? To be fair, 24 Lib Dem MPs signed early-day motion 622, which heaped praise on the work of the probation service just last year. Back in 2007, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote these words, which are worthy of repetition:
	“Few public services can be as readily overlooked as the probation service. For the last century probation officers have tirelessly and selflessly sought to help make our society safer and to rehabilitate those who have been drawn towards crime. The role they play is a vital one and it is important that politicians from across the party spectrum recognise this. As the second century of the probation service begins it is crucial that the unglamorous, painstaking yet hugely important work of the probation service is cherished, not undermined, by both Government and opposition parties.”
	I say to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches that our motion is a modest one: read it, consider it, support it. If they fail to support our motion, they will be allowing the Secretary of State and his Government to go ahead with their risky plans.
	In conclusion, changing our probation service to better rehabilitate offenders is not something that we, the profession, or experts are against. We must do all we can to reduce reoffending, by introducing new and innovative ways of working that are tried and tested before being rolled out. There should be no leaps into the unknown, and no gambling with public safety with half-baked reckless plans. I hope colleagues from all sides of the House will support our motion.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“applauds the work already carried out by probation trusts and other agencies to turn offenders away from crime; and welcomes the Government’s proposals to build on that work to further reduce re-offending by extending support after release to offenders given short custodial sentences, introducing an unprecedented nationwide through-the-prison-gate resettlement service so that offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community, harnessing the skills and experience of trained professionals and the innovation and versatility of voluntary and private sector providers to support the rehabilitation of low and medium risk offenders and creating a new National Probation Service that will work to protect the public and will directly manage those offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public.”
	It is an enormous pleasure to be debating under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is great to see you in the Chair. The amendment is in my name and the names of the Prime Minister and our right hon. Friends.
	The House has sat and listened for the past half hour to a party that has absolutely no idea how to tackle what I believe to be Britain’s biggest crime problem. The Labour party did nothing about the problem in all of the 13 years it was in government. This Government will not repeat that record of failure. We are determined to break the depressing merry-go-round of crime. In this country, we have a cycle of reoffending that has a dreadful impact on the lives of decent, hard-working members of society, and that creates needless numbers of victims in our communities.

Toby Perkins: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Chris Grayling: I will make some progress before giving way to hon. Members. Let me get established first.
	The reality is that crime in Britain is falling, which is good. There are fewer first-time criminals, which is also good. However, increasingly, crime is committed by people who have offended previously, who are going around and around the system. Reoffending in Britain has barely changed in a decade—it rose again in the past year. It is as high as it was five years ago when the trusts were formed and the reforms were introduced.
	Just yesterday, we released statistics that paint a grim picture of reoffending in this country. More than 148,000 criminals convicted or cautioned in the past year had at least 15 previous convictions or cautions. More than 500,000 offenders had at least one previous conviction or caution, including 95% of those given short sentences of less than 12 months. That group of offenders—prisoners who are released from short sentences of less than a year—have long been neglected by the system. They are at the heart of what we want to achieve.

Steve Brine: Will the Lord Chancellor give way?

Chris Grayling: I will give way in a moment.
	The overall reoffending rates of that group are shocking. In the year to September 2011, nearly 60% of them went on to commit a further crime. Nearly 85,000 further crimes were committed by the group who walk out of prison with £46 in their pockets and get little or no support to get their lives back together and turn away from crime.

Toby Perkins: It is possible that the Secretary of State is right and that the experts whom he believes are wrong are wrong. However, surely in the interests of democratic accountability, a radical change of the sort he proposes should be debated properly in the House and the other place. Why is he so frightened of proper scrutiny of his policies?

Chris Grayling: I am not frightened, and I will talk about the legislative base later. I am not frightened to debate—I am here today debating. We are doing the right thing.

Steve Brine: The figures that the Lord Chancellor gives are shocking and, in many ways, a disgrace to our country. Is not one reason for the figures that there is no through-the-gate system from custody to community? The new resettlement prisons—I am glad that Her Majesty’s prison Winchester is part of the proposals—are part of putting that failed system right.

Chris Grayling: We are trying to do the things that experts have told us need to happen. They tell us that we need to support people through the gate and support those who have sentences on the edge of 12 months.

Sadiq Khan: We are not against that.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not against that, but Labour Members have come up with no suggestions whatever on how to achieve it, and did not do so in 13 years in government. This Government will make that difference. The reason is that that group of people—the ones who walk the streets with £46 in their pocket—are being abandoned by the system. Many have deep-rooted problems, such as drug, mental health and educational problems. We currently expect them to change on their own. When we do nothing, they carry on reoffending, which means more victims and more ruined lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has said, it also means a cost, as estimated by the National Audit Office, of between £9.5 billion and £13 billion a year.

Richard Graham: Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the shadow Justice Secretary gave little recognition to the gravity of the problem; that, in his motion, there is nothing—not a single word—on how to reduce reoffending; and that the motion is simply a negative approach to the Government’s proposals?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the Opposition are doing is opposing. I hear no suggestions, but we heard no suggestions from the Labour Government. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on many occasions in the past few months. On 17 July, he said:
	“But I also know that the status quo is not an option. Re-offending rates are too high.”
	He has also said that we need to target specific groups, such as those who receive short sentences, many of whom are in the revolving door of reoffending. However, we heard nothing about that in his speech to his party conference this year, and there is nothing about it in the motion. The truth is that he has no plan.
	Worse than having no plan, the Opposition did nothing in government. They had the chance to tackle the problem of support for short-sentence offenders when
	they were in office. In 2003, they legislated for custody plus, a highly complex and bureaucratic system, but at least it was trying to address the problem. But in February 2006, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who was the Minister at the time, said:
	“We intend to introduce Custody Plus in the autumn of 2006.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 934W.]
	Only five months later, the then Government said that they would not now implement the new sentence of custody plus. In November 2007, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said:
	“No decision has yet been taken as to when custody plus will be introduced.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 946W.]
	In February 2010, just before the general election, Lord Barker said in the other place
	“Resource constraints have meant that we have been unable thus far to implement custody plus and there is no prospect of doing so in the near future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 17WS.]
	They opted out of their plan to tackle the problem that we are going to solve. They said that they could not do it, and it has been left to this Government to come up with a plan that will deliver real change.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I was a Minister in that Department, and the Lord Chancellor is wrong to say that nothing was done in our 13 years. We created the probation trusts, in the face of great resistance from his party, which voted against the Bill. In the Government’s plans, the multi-agency protection agreements between the police, the probation service and the criminal justice system will be kept in the public sector for the most serious offenders. Why will the rest go to the private sector when the risk register shows that there is concern about those people who go from a low or medium risk to high risk?

Chris Grayling: Let me address the issue of the risk register. The previous Government produced risk registers, but they never published them. A risk register is an internal working document designed to tell the team working on a project the steps that they need to take to ensure that untoward things do not happen. One of the things that we are doing in planning this project is, of course, aiming to deliver a transition that is as seamless as possible and protect the public. The difference this will make is to provide supervision for those people who are walking the streets and committing crimes, leading to more victims of crime today. That is what these reforms are all about.

Grahame Morris: If the Minister is interested in providing a quality service, why have probation trusts been forbidden to bid to run the new community rehabilitation companies? The trusts have the expertise.

Chris Grayling: Our probation staff are not prohibited from bidding. We have teams of staff who are preparing mutual bids, some of which will, I hope, be successful. They are receiving help from the Cabinet Office to do so, and we are hoping to see members of our current team take this opportunity, win contracts, and go on to make a real difference.

Caroline Lucas: The Government claim that private providers will have the tools they need to assess offender risks, but the proposals refer to a new and untried risk
	of serious recidivism model. Is the Minister aware of concerns that that could lead to private companies wrongly assessing the most serious cases—those with low risk of recidivism but high on the risk of harm, such as convicted murderers and rape offenders—and will he commit, in the interests of public safety, to proper piloting and external validation of any new tool before its implementation and before the creation of community rehabilitation companies?

Chris Grayling: We intend to use the same systems across the public, private and voluntary sectors—that is enormously important—so that there will be no question of people using different systems. It will be part of the contracting structure that what the public national probation service, working with the most serious offenders, uses will also be used by contractors.

Rehman Chishti: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Opposition have no right to lecture us on the criminal justice system, as they released tens of thousands of prisoners early, which undermined the public’s trust in the criminal justice system?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, what we hear is a party that has changed completely. When Labour Members talk about the outsourcing agenda, they tend to forget that they were the people who drove the outsourcing agenda. They were the people who said that prisons could and should be run in the private sector. They were the people who said that electronic monitoring could and should be run in the private sector. Because of the volte-face that has taken Labour back to being an old-fashioned left-wing socialist party, they are now pretending that none of that happened, but I can assure them that it did.

David Burrowes: Is it not the case that the Opposition have a one-sided view of expertise? From my involvement in the criminal justice system as a defence solicitor, I know the expertise of probation officers. That needs to be shared and transferred, and they need to be able to bid for contracts, but we have to recognise that expertise is not just in the public sector—there is expertise in the voluntary sector and the private sector. For example, is anyone saying that St Giles Trust, which supports people into work and housing, does not have expertise? Let us have a balanced view about allowing more people to be involved in the business of rehabilitation.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what we hope to achieve. This is not about handing probation to big companies, but bringing in the right expertise from the private, voluntary and community sectors to reinforce the work of the public sector, and to bring new ideas and approaches to rehabilitation. The great irony is that in the debate on the Offender Management Act 2007, Labour Members talked about the benefit of bringing together the skills of the public, private, voluntary and community sectors. Because of the new, union dominated agenda they are pursuing, they have abandoned all that and are now saying that anything that involves anybody else is simply not good, and that is not good enough.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Grayling: I will make some progress and then take some interventions.
	There has been talk about the categories of low and medium risk, something the right hon. Member for Tooting refers to regularly. The categories come from the current system—it is how the current probation system works. We will build on that in the new system.
	We will not do business with anyone who cannot demonstrate the right expertise in preventing reoffending. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made the valid point that there are many good community and voluntary sector organisations doing excellent work in this field. I want more of that work to be part of what we do in the probation sector.

Richard Graham: What my right hon. Friend says about the variety of organisations that have something important to contribute on rehabilitation is surely something we all recognise in our own constituencies. Will he confirm for the record that there is nothing to prevent—indeed, lots to encourage—the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire probation trusts getting together and bidding with a business for rehabilitation contracts?

Chris Grayling: Not only that; we are encouraging our management teams from trusts. We cannot contract on a payment-by-results basis with ourselves, but the Cabinet Office is investing money to encourage and support teams of staff who want to take over the business, run it and be free to innovate.

Pat McFadden: The Lord Chancellor is being generous in giving way. Let me make it clear that I believe there is valuable expertise among the many charities that work with offenders on some of the problems he has raised—on mental health, alcohol and drugs—but can he define medium risk offenders? What offences is he talking about? How does he deal with the point that was raised earlier about offenders who fluctuate between medium risk and high risk? If there is a logic to keeping the management of high risk offenders in the current system, what is the logic for those who fluctuate between the two?

Chris Grayling: Let me answer that question specifically. First, the categorisations are existing categorisations—they are not mine—and are part of a triage process within the existing probation system that we will continue to use. Secondly, on moving people from one category to another, it will the responsibility of a national probation trust to carry out risk assessments at the beginning, or later if circumstances change that require a new assessment to take place. The two organisations will be in part co-located, so it will not be a complicated bureaucratic process—people will be sitting in the same office. The national probation service will carry out assessments when they need to be carried out. I can explain this to the right hon. Gentleman separately and at much greater length if he would like, but that is how it will work.
	On voluntary sector organisations, we are making absolutely sure that smaller organisations have a place at the table.
	The shadow Justice Secretary’s comments about the Work programme were complete nonsense. When I left the Department for Work and Pensions, the voluntary
	sector was supporting about 150,000 people. It was by far the biggest voluntary sector programme of its kind ever seen in this country, with organisations such as the Papworth Trust delivering the programme across large areas of the country and making a real difference. I pay tribute to those charities. The story about bid candy is simply not true. In the two years I was employment Minister, fewer than 10 of the 250 to 300 voluntary sector organisations involved left the programme, and all of them did so for reasons unconnected with the programme. So I am afraid he is plain wrong.

Sadiq Khan: indicated dissent.

Chris Grayling: Well, I did the job.
	Section 3 of the 2007 Act provides a clear and unambiguous power for the Secretary of State to
	“make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”
	On Second Reading, the then Home Secretary said:
	“The Secretary of State, not the probation boards, will be responsible for ensuring service provision by entering into contracts with the public, private or voluntary sectors. With that burden lifted, the public sector can play to its strengths while others play to theirs.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 593.]
	I could not have described our plans better. Furthermore, on Report, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) said:
	“Most services will be commissioned from lead providers at area level, which will sub-contract to a range of other providers.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 960.]
	Again, that is very close to the plans before the House today. The shadow Justice Secretary must also know that in another place Baroness Scotland said that the Act
	“places the statutory duty with the Secretary of State, who then commissions the majority of services through a lead provider”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2007; Vol. 693, c. 639.]
	We have two options. Either the Opposition are not being upfront with the House about what they really intended to do in the 2007 Act, or they were so incompetent they did not know what they were doing. The House can choose which is most likely.

David Hanson: The golden thread through the 2007 Act was public sector management of all offenders—low and medium-level and serious offenders—supported by the commissioning of the type of services the Justice Secretary wants on health, mental health and alcohol and drug treatment from the voluntary and private sector, but the public sector has to be responsible for managing offenders.

Chris Grayling: I repeat, from the 2007 Act:
	“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”
	That is clear, to my mind. It might not have been what Labour intended, but it is what the power does, and it is the legal basis we are using for pushing ahead with these reforms.
	We will give providers the flexibility to do what works and free them from Whitehall bureaucracy, and the deal is that they only get paid in full for real reductions in reoffending, which is a good deal for victims and the taxpayer. Despite what the shadow Justice Secretary
	says about the Work programme, it has now helped many hundreds of thousands of the long-term unemployed. He talks about low-hanging fruit—these are people who had been unable to find a job through Jobcentre Plus in over a year.
	The Opposition are missing one other important point. The shadow Justice Secretary talked about piloting, but the pilot programme delivering clear improvements in the level of reoffending that is closest to what I want to achieve around the country is in Peterborough. It is so far achieving very good results. It is impressive and I encourage Members in that area to visit. One cannot but feel that it is the right thing to do, but what the Opposition have not admitted is that it was started by Labour. I know it does not want to admit it now, but it started us on this path, and it is a sign of how absurd it has become that it wants to walk us off this path today.
	On the point about public protection, the national public sector probation service we are establishing will, of course, be responsible for risk assessing all offenders supervised in the community and will retain the management of offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public, who have committed the more serious offences and who require multi-agency supervision. That is right and proper. An hon. Member—I cannot remember which one—made a point about the working day. I would rather the supervision of highest-risk offenders was in the hands of dedicated experts—and it will continue to be—but having listened to people talk about inexperienced individuals and companies coming in, I think it is worth pointing out that after these reforms, it will be the same teams looking after low and medium-risk offenders as are looking after them now. Only over time will we see the work force evolve so that the expertise in the voluntary sector becomes part of the mix, with former offenders who have turned their lives around influencing young offenders and encouraging them not to do it again.

Natascha Engel: What I cannot understand is how the transition between low, medium and high risk will work. We all know that people’s circumstances can fluctuate in those situations. If, as the Secretary of State said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the changes are not particularly dramatic, why are the Government pushing them through? If, however, they are dramatic, there will be a disjoin. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with that?

Chris Grayling: As I have said, it will be a simple process. The national probation service team will be responsible for risk assessment. They will have a duty to carry out a new assessment when a person’s circumstances change, and it will be the duty of the provider to notify the team of any material change of circumstances. They will be co-located, and when an offender becomes a high-risk offender, they will be taken back under the supervision of the national probation service. This is about people sitting in the same office and working together, just as people work together in any office environment.

Steve Brine: We have ascertained that Labour accepts the need to bring in other providers to deal with people who are serving fewer than 12 months. The Secretary of
	State has read out the relevant legislation; it is there in black and white. The Peterborough pilot was introduced by Labour, and we understand that Labour Members are very proud of it. So what does my right hon. Friend think lies behind the outrage being expressed this afternoon at our proposals to drive down the reoffending rates that are costing our constituents billions of pounds?

Chris Grayling: I can only think that it is because the Labour Government could not find a way to do that themselves, or perhaps because Labour has reverted politically to where we all know it belongs and is now ideologically opposed to this kind of approach. It is a party that used to believe that outsourcing part of what we did could make a difference, but it has clearly changed that view now.
	It is worth mentioning the creation of resettlement prisons. If we are to deliver rehabilitation that prevents reoffending, it is really important that we have a proper through-the-gates service. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) mentioned the prison in Winchester, which will be one of the network of 82 resettlement prisons in which people will, whenever possible, spend the last few months of a longer sentence, or the whole of a shorter one. Those prisons will provide a proper through-the-gates service that will also prevent reoffending.
	We must remember why we are doing all this. The Opposition want us to wait for years before doing anything; they do not want us to take this approach. I have a different view: I think that we cannot afford not to act now. Every day of every week, innocent people are the victims of crimes committed by offenders who have just left prison without getting any supervision whatever, and with wholly inadequate preparation for life back in society. Every day of every week, innocent people are the victims of crimes committed by offenders who could be turned away from a life of crime if only there were someone there to help them to do that. That is a scandalous situation, but there are ways for us to solve it. This should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, but our reforms will change things for the better.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Owing to the high demand for time to speak, I have had to impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes.

Paul Goggins: I, too, would like to congratulate you on your election to your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I do not criticise the Justice Secretary for wanting to change, improve or reform our prison and probation services. That is something that we should all want. However, I absolutely reject his assertion that nothing happened during the 13 years of the Labour Government, and I want to explain, drawing on my own experience, some of the things that did happen during that time.
	Ten years ago, almost to the day, Lord Carter of Coles presented my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and me with a report, “Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: a new Approach”. And it was a new approach.
	Three outcomes from that report were significant. The first was the creation of the National Offender Management Service, which brought together prison and probation services in a way that had not been done before and institutionalised the end-to-end management of offenders in a way that has underpinned everything that has happened since. More controversially, there was a clearer separation between commissioning and providing services, and a greater emphasis on contestability—a belief that by bringing more players into the system, we could get efficiencies and innovation.
	Some of that got me into hot water with some of my colleagues, and I make that clear now because I want the Justice Secretary to know that I am not afraid of bringing in competition or of private sector or third sector players coming in to help to reduce reoffending. I share many of the objectives of his transforming rehabilitation strategy. I am deeply concerned, however, that what he is doing is not reforming the probation service, but destroying it. This is a Secretary of State who wants both to nationalise and to privatise the probation service at one and the same time. He wants to end local probation trusts, but to create a new national probation service run out of Whitehall and to award 21 new private sector contracts that will be drawn up and awarded by his Ministry of Justice.
	Why is it that successful and effective trusts such as the Northumbria and Greater Manchester trusts will not be allowed to bid for low and medium-risk offender work? Why is it that Greater Manchester trust, which has been commended from the Dispatch Box by the Justice Secretary on more than one occasion and has introduced innovations such as the intensive alternative to custody, cannot be trusted to bid for and to run these services? The only conclusion I can reach is that his motivation is ideological and not practical.
	Let me say something about the costs and the lack of transparency—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) alluded to this—especially in respect of the new arrangements that the Justice Secretary proposes for the supervision of offenders who get short prison sentences. I support the Government in trying to introduce this innovation—I make no bones about that—but let me be absolutely candid about custody plus. Along with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wanted custody plus and we legislated for it in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The obstacle—the Secretary of State referred to it—was the cost. But at least I can put a price on what custody plus would have cost. Ten years ago, it would have cost £194 million a year. Interestingly, that was based on an estimate of 50,000 offenders who would have been in the system—precisely the same number as those in his impact assessment report. I can put a figure on it, but he cannot. All we are told is that it will be paid for by the savings generated by the competition for low and medium-risk offenders. Frankly, I just do not believe it. Either that supervision will be inadequate or the existing provision will be weakened and reduced in quality.
	I cannot understand the pace of change on which this Secretary of State seems hell-bent. Within one year from now, he will have to award contracts, appoint staff, transfer cases, set up IT, sort out premises provision, renegotiate or even end existing contracts and organise
	70 resettlement prisons. Well, I wish him well. If he succeeds in that, I will be the first to congratulate him, but he is setting himself an impossible target that could produce tremendous dislocation within these important services.
	I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to trial and test the sort of approach he is taking. We may disagree about the approach, but he should at least trial and test it. How can he work out the balance between risk and reward when he has not tested his own scheme? How can he know how much money to offer as an up-front payment? How does he know how much to pay for the results? Even by his own lights, he is found wanting in his thinking.
	My concerns and those of other hon. Members and probation officers are shared by police and crime commissioners, and I know that the Justice Secretary has received representations from them. They criticise him for reducing the local partnerships that probation trusts have been able to develop and they are critical of the fragmentation that will come from this flawed approach to risk assessment. The probation service has evolved much over the last 100 years, but this Secretary of State runs the risk of destroying it.

Edward Garnier: I join others in congratulating you on your election to the position that you now hold, Madam Deputy Speaker, and wish you all good fortune. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). This is not the first occasion on which I have spoken immediately after him in a criminal justice debate. I have always found that what he has to say is full of good sense, and that he thinks a great deal about it beforehand.
	Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have form. He has experience as—I believe—a Home Office and Northern Ireland criminal justice Minister, while I come to the debate armed, if that is the right expression, with some experience as a Crown court recorder. I sat as a recorder from 1998 until 2010, when I was appointed a Law Officer. Between 2005 and 2009, when I became shadow Attorney-General, I was the shadow justice Minister dealing with prisons and probation. I like to think that, as a consequence of both those functions, I learnt quite a bit about the way in which we run our probation and rehabilitation system.
	I would be dishonest if I did not accept that a number of my constituents who work for the probation service in Leicestershire are deeply concerned about what my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are proposing, but I happen to disagree with them because of what I learnt during my time as a recorder and as a shadow justice Minister. Having visited 65 of the 142 or 143 prisons and other custodial units in the country, and having also visited any number of probation offices and staff throughout England and Wales, I concluded that what we were doing extremely badly was looking after—and I mean looking after—repeat offenders. We were quite good at dealing with long-term offenders who had been given five, six, seven or eight years or life sentences, but we were hopeless at dealing with those who had been given sentences of under a year. Now, at last, my right hon. Friend is pushing forward—admittedly, not with everyone’s
	approval—a policy that will enable us to look after those people, and looking after them will mean that we look after the victims as well.
	When I sat as a recorder, most of those whom I saw were drug-addicted, mentally ill people in the dock, and people who could not understand why they had become victims and, in many cases, repeat victims It was the pathetic story of a carousel of failure, and by the time I had become shadow Attorney-General and, eventually, Solicitor-General, I felt evangelical about it. I am not suggesting that the Lord Chancellor is anything like a saint—he and I have had our differences over all sorts of things—but at last he and I are on the same page, both of us wanting to do something practical about repeat offending.
	At Pentonville prison in London, most of the probation work is entirely defensive. Those who go into the prison will probably be there for less than six months, and many are there for a matter of days or weeks. Most of them cannot read, most are on drugs, most do not have a GP, and most do not have a fixed address. The main thing that the Prison Service and the probation service can do in that place is keep them alive. After a few days or weeks, they are spat out on to the street—and what do they do in order to feed their drug habit? They commit burglaries, they commit robberies, and they become street drug dealers.
	We cannot continue to permit that. While it is difficult for my constituents who are members of the National Association of Probation Officers and work extremely hard, and very well, in Leicestershire, to accept the structural changes that are required to achieve the improvements that are needed, and while I have great personal sympathy for them, I regret to say that we must do something and do it quickly, because otherwise the situation will simply progress. What people who have been given short and medium-term prison sentences need on release is a job, somewhere to stay, and a strong relationship. Ideally that strong relationship should be with a partner, but it could also be with someone who can supervise and assist them. They need to be caught, not at the gate but before the gate—before they leave prison.
	My good friend Jonathan Aitken said the most terrifying and difficult thing for him when he was in prison was worrying about what was going to happen to him when he left, and he was well-off, highly educated and had all the advantages of his class and education. Just imagine what that must be like for a poor drug addict with mental illness. They have a great big cliff to face as they leave prison. Unless we have supervisors, whether in the charitable sector or the probation service, there to catch them and take them to a better life, we will just reinforce failure.
	I commend my right hon. Friend, and I urge him and his fellow Ministers to press on with this. Some unedifying remarks will be directed at us by the Opposition, but I say, “Just be strong.” We have got people to save here and it takes courage: get on with it.

Nick Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). His compassion for those who need our help does him credit. I have to say I draw different conclusions, however, and that is
	the argument between us. I am very pleased that the Labour party has chosen the probation service as the topic for this Opposition day debate. May I also congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to the post, and say how pleased I am to see you in your place?
	This is the right time to be debating this topic. I believe that what the Government propose poses a real risk to the general public, who are, after all, our constituents, and also to the public purse. When the Secretary of State for Justice was making the case for his proposals, he did not say he thought they would save money. I strongly suspect that, if he gets his way, this will not save money; indeed, I think it will cost more money.
	There is an overarching consideration in all this: the question of the delivery of public service. I urge caution. I believe the Government should proceed more cautiously and in a more measured way. The criticisms of the Government’s proposals are widespread; there are many people urging caution, although it is my understanding that the Government intend just to press ahead. I believe that the pace of change is too fast, and that the nature of the change—essentially to a payment-by-results contractor system for 70% of the total work load—is too great to roll this out without first piloting the core proposition. Payment by results is, in any event, an untested way of delivering probation and aftercare services and may well turn out not to be a suitable model for delivering such services. The scope for abuse is obvious and the nature of the safeguards the Government propose is not obvious.

Alison Seabeck: Talking about payment by results, 70% of the people who come to Devon and Cornwall probation service with literacy and numeracy issues end up with a qualification, whereas the national average is 20%. Those are the results currently being achieved by the probation service.

Nick Brown: Yes, those are the results. We are talking about what is, by and large, a well-run public service that does its job well. Quite some argument is required to make the case in favour of taking the sort of risks with it the Government are proposing in order to justify what is being done.
	Not enough thought has been given to the distinctions between high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk offenders. The idea is that all the difficult cases are dealt with in the public sector and those deemed to be low risk are dealt with by private contractors, which is quite dangerous. These categorisations are not static. Even under the present system, 24% of the case load changes categorisation during the period of supervision. Payment by results by its very nature incentivises contractors to minimise the difficult part of their work load, so there are some perverse economic incentives in the Government’s idea.
	It is also the case that categorisation can change very suddenly as a result of a significant single event. In theory, this will result in transfers between public and private sectors inside what is, at the moment, a unified public service. The new arrangements will make this more difficult, especially with economic incentives driving the process. There is too much scope for dispute and delay, thus endangering the public. In any event, the private sector contractors will have to be invigilated, with their claims checked to make sure that they are true, and that will cost money. I suspect that the Government
	are being unduly optimistic about this aspect of their proposals. Indeed, the Secretary of State is already complaining about being overcharged for the electronic tagging arrangements.
	I do not understand why the Government are trying to do this to the probation service, which is a good public service. Feeling is particularly strong in the area I represent. A fortnight ago, I presented a petition signed by more than 2,000 local citizens in defence of the Northumbria probation trust, which is rated as exceptional. Of the 35 probation areas, 31 are rated good and four are rated exceptional. In 2011, the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence.
	The Government’s proposals will wreck all that, and the claimed benefits are unproven. The Department’s own risk assessment of the proposals, which was helpfully leaked into the public domain, confirms that. The risk assessment codes a number of the key risks as black, which is the worst rating possible; apparently, there is an 80% chance of a drop in operational performance and up to an 80% risk of failure of implementation. Crucially, there is an 80% risk of the cost savings not being met. Why on earth are we doing this if there is a likelihood of the cost savings not being met? Why would any rational person do this? The risks to the public purse and to the safety of our constituents are unacceptable.
	I urge the Government to take a deep breath and to go back to the reasonable compromise proposal to pilot their ideas to test them against the evidence. In parallel, they could, if they wanted to, pilot the same ideas in a public setting and compare the two. Thirdly, it would be reasonable to have a pilot involving voluntary organisations with a special expertise, where they may be able to enhance what is done in the context of a first-rate public service.
	Taking a little longer and getting this right is surely the correct way to proceed, rather than rushing at it, getting it all wrong and then coming back to the House saying, “We haven’t saved any money. It has actually cost more. Rather a lot has gone wrong and we are asking the public sector to take over again and to clear it all up.” That would be absolutely disastrous and there is no need to take the risk. There is no need to take the risk with our constituents’ safety and no need to take the risk with the public purse. I urge the Government to step back and to try to come to a more consensual way forward. I would certainly play a part in that if they were willing to do so.

Lorely Burt: The Liberal Democrats want a rehabilitation revolution. We want to toughen up community sentences and make them a genuine alternative to custody, to embed restorative justice throughout the justice system and to open up rehabilitation services to a wider range of providers to ensure that the most effective and innovative measures are available.
	It is clear from the comments of hon. Members from both sides of the House that the justice system, as it stands at the moment, is not working. Nearly half of offenders reoffend, but the figure for short-term prisoners is even worse, at 60% and they are the ones who currently
	get no help with rehabilitation at all. The result is a huge cost to society and to the economy. We need help for all ex-offenders to enable them to build their lives on release and not fall into the same traps that got them into trouble in the first place. That is why I welcome our current proposals to change the law to ensure that all offenders released from custody, regardless of their sentence length, will receive at least 12 months of supervision on licence. It is to be done by making probation cost-effective, by extending the service to lower-risk offenders on a payments-by-results basis. That additional help that offenders receive should, literally, pay for itself.
	I am a member of a Select Committee considering prisoner voting, and I can tell hon. Members that when it comes to the issues that will determine the amount of reoffending, the right to vote, although that is an important human right, is way down the list. The important factors are having somewhere to stay, meaningful work, training and education, supportive personal relationships, a mentor, continuing health care and so on. Ex-offenders will now have the opportunity to access such things through a structured programme of help. The private and voluntary sectors as well as those who now work in probation trusts can bid for the care of those low-risk offenders.

Kevan Jones: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady about the excellent work done by many voluntary organisations, as I certainly have one such organisation in my constituency. I am being told, however, that such organisations cannot bid for the contracts, as they will not take that financial risk, but, ironically, some of the big private-sector companies are asking them to be on the sub-tender list. The idea being suggested is that such organisations will come forward, but that will not be the case.

Lorely Burt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully when the Secretary of State made his remarks on that point. I can only concur with the Secretary of State’s comments—they worked for me.
	The importance and value of probation officers in protecting the public and helping offenders reintegrate into society should not be underestimated. We are clear that we need to obtain the skills and expertise of probation professionals as we move into the new system, which is why we are establishing a national probation service.
	I want to address a phrase in Labour’s motion that is, I feel, misleading. It states that it is a
	“fact that under the Government’s plans supervision of dangerous, sexual and violent offenders may be undertaken by inexperienced and unqualified staff and by companies without any track record in this area”.
	I believe that the important factor is whether they are “high risk”. The Justice Secretary has explained very clearly how the system would work. The established probation service will handle all high-risk ex-offenders and to imply that they would be entrusted to inexperienced and unqualified people is, in my view, scaremongering. Let us have none of that.

Natascha Engel: How does the hon. Lady account for the fact that although some individuals might be low-risk or medium-risk offenders a fluctuating condition might mean that something happens in their lives—as she has said, some of these people often live very chaotic lives—that means that they suddenly, overnight, become high risk? That is the situation that we are worried about.

Lorely Burt: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right that such people live chaotic and fluctuating lives and things can change, but the Justice Secretary explained that the people making the assessments would always be on the job and would be in the same room as the other people who would be involved.
	There are some legitimate questions for the Minister. I have seen payment by results work well in job searching and I know that there are good voluntary and private organisations with skill and experience that could be put to good use in rehabilitation. There are also private companies, however, that have failed spectacularly to handle work that has hitherto been carried out by the public sector. Whenever the profit motive comes into play, the desire will be to maximise profit and minimise risk and effort. How will the Government ensure that private companies, in particular, do not simply come along and pick the low-hanging fruit? How will we ensure that a very important Liberal Democrat principle is adhered to—[Laughter.] The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches are having a laugh, as they say, but a decision on this very important principle was passed at the last Liberal Democrat conference—[Interruption.] If hon. Members care to listen, they will find out what we think is really important. The principle that we would adhere to is that all ex-offenders should receive appropriate help, even when the risk of reoffending is high. So how will that happen? And how will the costs be factored? After all, many ex-offenders will leave prison never to reoffend, all on their own. Will there be some form of incentive to encourage voluntary sector or private providers to take on the hard cases—people with addictions, low educational attainment and poor or even non-existent employment records?

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorely Burt: I have taken two interventions. I am sorry.
	How we will ensure that everyone gets the help that they need to become a real stakeholder in Britain today? I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

Elfyn Llwyd: As a member of the Justice Committee, I can tell the House that we are still concerned about the Government’s proposals. We have not formed a view yet but we are returning to the issue to look at the timing of these changes, the structure, and crucially the contractual arrangements. I understand that the Government intend to use the Offender Management Act 2007 as the prime mechanism to abolish probation trusts and create new community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service, but I believe sincerely that the introduction of the transforming rehabilitation programme should be debated in full by both Houses of Parliament. This is far too important a matter to be rushed through without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	In March 2014, 35 probation trusts will disappear. That will inevitably lead to job losses. Currently 18,000 staff face uncertainty about their future. The impact on the public will be shocking; I hope I am wrong. After six months, the remaining 70% of the probation service will be privatised and sold off to the cheapest bidder—another race to the bottom. The Minister disagrees, obviously. Contractors who offer services for the lowest price will be responsible for supervising the low to
	medium-risk offenders—that is, the precise group most likely to go on to commit further and serious offences. This will include the supervision of those convicted of domestic violence, sex offenders and gang members—groups which require specialist knowledge and expertise.
	The National Association of Probation Officers, the probation union, has estimated that nearly 70,000 of the 140,000 medium and low-risk cases that are bound to be outsourced will be offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences.

Alison Seabeck: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Does he share my concern that there is a risk that those private contractors will look at some of those people in their mix and say, “These are a bit difficult. Let’s just pass them back to the public sector and all the costs will go back,” in order to meet their target?

Elfyn Llwyd: That is precisely what will happen. Once the profit motive comes in, common sense dictates that that will happen.
	Private companies will be handling extremely sensitive cases, many of which pose huge risks to the public, with little or no experience of assessing risk. We know that that, too, is a movable feast. They will also be unable to cope with the demands of managing offenders who need encouragement, support and patience—work which the probation service itself is doing very well at present. The Ministry of Justice figures show that all 35 probation trusts are hitting all their targets with good or excellent performance levels. The reoffending rates for all adult offenders on probation supervision are the lowest they have been since 2007-08. In October 2011, as we know, the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence.
	Reoffending by those who undergo supervision by probation has been falling every year since 2000, and two thirds of individuals managed by probation trusts in the community do not go on to reoffend within a year. The service’s high-level performance is continuing. The Government want to fragment that. The highest reoffending rates of 57% are of course found among those offenders who undergo short-term prison sentences—that is, the group who have no current contact with probation trusts. The Government have in the past ruled out the option of handing over responsibility for these individuals to probation trusts.
	Probation trusts have made savings of 20% between 2008-09 and 2012-13, despite the fact that the probation budget has fallen by 19% in real terms over the same period. That all goes to show that it is trained and experienced probation workers who keep crime rates down and protect the public from further harm, but the Justice Secretary seems to have little regard for any of that.
	These plans represent a victory of dogma over common sense and are yet another example of the Tory mantra that public is bad and private is always good, despite G4S torturing people in South African prisons and, along with others, skimming off millions of pounds of Government money.

Richard Graham: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he accused Government Members of being anti-public sector. For those of us who have worked in the public service for large chunks of our life, that is deeply offensive.

Elfyn Llwyd: I was actually referring to the Secretary of State. Whether the hon. Gentleman fancies himself in that role is a matter for another day.
	The MOJ’s internal risk register was mentioned in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Both NAPO and the Probation Chiefs Association have expressed grave and well-thought-out concerns about public safety as a result of these plans. That is why the call for pilots makes every possible sense. There is a real risk that communication gaps will occur, leading to delays and endangering the public.
	The problems faced by offenders are frequently complex and probation staff have experience and training that helps them know which services offenders should utilise to meet their needs. Work done by the Prison Reform Trust has shown that offenders are 12 times more likely to have spent time in care and 20 times more likely to have been expelled from school than others in the general population. Furthermore, two thirds have encountered problems with substance abuse and 72% have two or more mental health problems. But the Government’s proposals will fragment the local partnership work in which probation trusts currently play a vital role, including youth to adult transitions, troubled family initiatives, women offender institutes and community safety partnerships.
	The staff are now being kept in the dark about how individuals delivering probation services will be trained in future, as well as crucial details such as: the terms of voluntary redundancy schemes; what access, if any, will be granted to local government pension schemes, both for existing staff and new recruits; and information on how their roles will change after the reforms have been introduced. In October members of NAPO, for only the second time in its 101-year history, voted for direct action, with more than 84% voting in support on a 46% turnout.
	The Government’s plans risk threatening the success of the probation service and pose a danger to the public. The MOJ knows that and has refused to publish the evidence to substantiate that stark fact. The common-sense answer—the elephant in the room—is of course to extend the remit of the award-winning probation service so that it can supervise offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. The Government have chosen not to do that on dogmatic grounds, and sooner or later they will pay for it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The time limit will have to be reduced to five minutes in an attempt on my part to accommodate all remaining speakers. There is no guarantee of that, but the chances are now better.

Paul Maynard: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall do my best to encompass all my thoughts within the requisite five minutes.
	It was a pleasure not only to be asked to speak in this debate, but to meet a constituent last Saturday whose grandson is sadly in the criminal justice system. He has just had to move to the other side of the country to access the rehabilitation course he requires to get a meaningful job upon release. The consequence is that he can no longer see his family, as they cannot afford to
	travel to the other side of the country, but he understands the importance of getting a job and having a secure financial base on which to rebuild his life. It is clear to me that this debate is not about the arid structures that Opposition Members have talked about; it is about real people and, most importantly, outcomes.
	The Secretary of State is right to point to the appalling reoffending statistics for those serving sentences of less than 12 months. As he said, those with the highest reoffending rates seem to get the least rehabilitation support. Resettlement prisons are clearly a key component of the new landscape, but on the journey there are risks of mixing potentially vulnerable young offenders and older inmates. Will the Minister look closely at what the independent monitoring board has said about HMP Portland, where there has been serious evidence of self-harm and violence because of the inappropriate mixing of populations?
	I urge hon. Members to look at the Prison Reform Trust’s report, “Out for Good”, which is about what prisoners want in having a successful rehabilitation in their communities. I declare an interest as a trustee, but it is a very worthwhile read. One of its key points, which I have not yet heard mentioned in the debate, is the importance of stable financial support on release. By this I do not just mean the £46 that people take through the gate, but their ability to have a bank account and to access insurance. Many banks have carried out pilot projects—Barclays has made more progress than most—and the charity Unlock is doing its best to corral the financial services industry in this regard. However, I urge Ministers to try a little harder. Without access to a bank account, which is now such an important part of daily life, or adequate insurance, rehabilitation is made that much harder.
	Members in all parts of the House have praised the voluntary sector and the charities that can all play such an important role, but I have detected a slight discrepancy whereby Opposition Members see them as being welcome participants but in a subsidiary role. I am happy to see them in a leading role, and I think they want to do far more. For example, the Clink Charity is a support group for about 1,000 different smaller charities that is actively trying to work with the Government to play a role in this. I urge the Minister to look closely at its recommendations about how we can involve those smaller charities fairly in the commissioning sector. It proposes that some of the up-front financial risk that they have to bear should be transferred to the upper-tier providers of these services, perhaps allowing them to play a much greater role. I would like the Minister to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is no longer in her place, who said that many small charities—Hibiscus springs to mind—work with very small segments of the offender population and might struggle to generate the statistical justifications that, in the eyes of the larger providers, enable them to make a contribution.
	I recognise the concerns of many probation trust members about their professional future. Will the Minister say a little more about the benefits of mutuals? Will he confirm that any trust that is doing good work at the moment, be it in Manchester or in Sussex—for both are doing excellent work—can continue to do that work if they transfer to a mutual status? That confirmation
	would be very welcome to those who work in such trusts. Thank you again, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

Mike Wood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
	I speak as a trained probation officer and as someone who was perhaps least offended when the Secretary of State talked about ideologues, as I think that ideology often gets a bad press. However, being ideological does not remove from the Government the responsibility to provide protection for their citizens. These dramatic changes within our criminal justice system place the 120,000 men, women and children I represent in this place, as everybody else represents their constituents, under threat, and we must therefore speak out against them.
	The stated aim of the Government’s plans—we have heard this articulated several times—is to address their concern about reoffending levels. Recidivism should be of concern to all of us, but up to this point neither the probation service nor anyone else has had any responsibility for the vast majority of reoffenders. Nobody in this House disagrees that petty criminals who leave prison after serving short sentences need extra help and support, and we have already heard how that should be done: extend the remit of the probation service to cover such people. Why abolish the probation service and privatise out of existence the successful group of people who have proved that they have the expertise to make a difference to the lives of those people, and why exclude them from the Government’s bidding process? It is absolutely barmy.
	Anyone listening to this debate would not think that crime has been falling for the past 20 years under Governments of both stripes. West Yorkshire probation service deals with offenders in my area, where reoffending is down by 14% over the past five years. The situation is in many ways better, not worse, than it has ever been. The probation service is leaner, fitter, better and more focused than ever—certainly compared with when I worked as a probation officer—so we have the opportunity, should we wish, to extend support to people through a proven organisation.

John Healey: South Yorkshire, like west Yorkshire, has one of the best-performing probation trusts anywhere in the country and it already works with people who are convicted and serve a term of fewer than 12 months. Is it not the case that all of the probation trusts have said they will do this extra work at no extra cost? The question for Ministers, therefore, is: why on earth will they not back the probation trusts, which are already doing the job and doing it well in most cases?

Mike Wood: My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, but we know that the reason why that will not happen is ideological: this Government believe that private is good and public is bad. We also know that they are not really convinced that these changes will make any real difference to reoffending rates or save money.

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what has happened to reoffending rates over the past 10 or 15 years? Have they got better or worse, or have they stayed the same? If they have stayed the same, does he not agree that something needs to be done differently? Secondly, does he not agree that the high rate of reoffending by those with sentences of fewer than 12 months needs to be tackled urgently?

Mike Wood: The hon. Gentleman’s question has two parts and I think we have already answered it. The reoffending rates are static, but the bulk of the problem lies in a group that is not yet the responsibility of any organisation—certainly not of the probation service. What I am suggesting is that if we want to provide support for that group of offenders, we should extend the remit of the organisation that has proved that it has the expertise, skills and ability to make a difference. Instead, the Government intend to move to an untested system of payment by results that is unique throughout the criminal justice world and that will be inhabited by companies that have proved themselves to be not only incompetent, but dishonest in the exercise of previous contracts let to them by this Government.
	A problem has been identified, but the system that we are producing will make things worse, not better. The Government are in a fix of their own making. They talk of a revolution in the way that offenders are managed. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is no longer in her seat, said that the Liberals identified with the idea of a revolution. However, we know that revolutions have a tendency to eat up and destroy those who are central to their genesis.
	The Government want to place the supervision of thousands of potentially dangerous and unpredictable offenders in the hands of companies that have no track record in the field and that increase their profits consistently by employing poorly paid, untrained, temporary staff. If we add to that the privateer’s tendency to promote commercial confidentiality over partnership working, which has been central to the progress that has been made over the past 20 years, we have a volatile and frightening prospect.
	Had the Secretary of State graced us with his presence until the end of the debate, I would have reminded him, as has happened once already, of the statement that he made in this House on 9 January:
	“Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]
	That might be okay for the Secretary of State in his personal life, but he is charged with a responsibility to the public of this country and he needs to exercise it better.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood).
	Earlier this afternoon, I had a chat with my father, who was a justice of the peace for many years. When I told him that I would be speaking on behalf of the Dorset probation service this afternoon, he said without any hesitation what huge respect he had for all the members of the probation service he had met in his many years as a JP.
	Dorset has 10 probation officers and a small administration group based in Weymouth. They handle a case load of 350 offenders at any one time. The pressure is intense. When I visited the team, I was deeply impressed by their professionalism and dedication. They told me that they were concerned about some of the changes that the Government are proposing. It would be wise for us to listen.
	I should emphasise that some of the changes are broadly welcomed by the probation team. They are pleased about the extension of statutory supervision to those who are in custody for fewer than 12 months. We have heard about that proposal today. They also welcome the development of seamless through-the-gates resettlement provision. However, the seamless resettlement service will work only if there is active engagement between the probation officer and the offender for at least three months prior to release. Crucially, family ties have also been shown to be vital to the successful reintegration of offenders into the community.
	With the closure of Dorchester prison, which until now has been the dedicated resettlement prison for Dorset, offenders and probation officers must meet at Exeter prison, which is some 90 minutes away. That inevitably reduces the number of times they can meet and the amount of useful time that they can spend together. Furthermore, it takes the offender further away from home and his or her support network. It also affects the probation officer’s ability to deal with the intense work load that they leave behind.
	If those changes are due to cuts, as must be assumed, they are a false economy. Spending nearly four hours on the road is not a good use of time or money. It also has a knock-on effect on the service and the courts. If the resettlement is truly to be seamless, we must ensure that Dorset probation officers can spend time with Dorset prisoners in Dorset. I ask the Minister to look again at the provision of a dedicated resettlement prison for Dorset.
	There are also questions over the part-privatisation of the probation service that need to be answered. At the top of the list of concerns is the potential impact of the split between the national probation service and the community rehabilitation company. The NPS will be publicly run and manage offenders with a high risk of harm, as we have heard. The CRC will be run by commercial bodies and will manage those who have a medium or low risk of harm through a series of interventions and programmes. The problem is that offenders do not usually remain low, medium or high risk; many factors can mean that an offender moves from low risk to high risk, not least if they revert to a drug or alcohol habit.
	The new system would mean an offender being passed from the CRC to the NPS, and potentially back again. Will the Minister comment on the continuity of care under such a scenario? That issue matters because research has shown that the relationship between an offender and their probation officer is crucial to whether—once released—they succeed on their licence or order. That continuity is so important that, as I understand it, a change of probation officer for an offender is investigated by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, and every effort is made to ensure that the prisoner keeps the same
	probation officer throughout. As a result of the split between the NPS and the CRC, probation officers are concerned that that relationship could be affected, with serious consequences for both the offender and wider society.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech and a strong point about which the Minister was shaking his head. Is it not the case that one in four offenders in any one year moves between medium and high-risk categories? They therefore risk yo-yoing between the agencies, which must involve extra cost, extra bureaucracy and extra risk to the public.

Richard Drax: I hear the statistics from the right hon. Gentleman, and on my right, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), says that they are wrong. I was expressing the concerns of my constituents that there will inevitably be some potential confusion between the two organisations. I have been told by probation officers that what is vital and successful at the moment is the fact that they can keep an eye on someone and there is no need to think, “What happens if they go there? Who is going to deal with that? Will they slip through the net?”

Jeremy Wright: It might help if I clarify the position at this stage. In answer to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I was shaking my head because when someone is categorised by the national probation service as moving from medium risk to high risk, they will stay with that service. There will be no passing to and fro when that allocation process has taken place.

Richard Drax: I am most grateful to the Minister although that still leaves a slight query about those categorised as low risk. What happens if, as I mentioned in my speech, someone moves from low risk to high risk?

Jeremy Wright: The same.

Richard Drax: I am most grateful to the Minister for intervening.
	My other concern is that probation officers are concerned about their careers because when they join they have, as I understand it, a mixed portfolio—some offenders are low risk, some medium risk and some high risk. If the probation officer is a member of the CRC, they will inevitably end up with high-risk offenders all the time. I am told that the pressures on those who look after those offenders—who are potentially dangerous—is immense. At the moment, because probation officers have a mixed portfolio, they welcome the fact that they do not have that continual assault on their time. I would be grateful if when he concludes, the Minister commented on career prospects for those probation officers who will still be in the probation service run by the public sector.
	Finally, my probation officers would argue that we should run the probation service for all offenders, rather than arbitrarily dividing them into high, low or medium risk and artificially separating them. We heard earlier that three councils have asked the Government whether the proposals could be delayed for further consideration, and I would be grateful if the Minister told the House
	whether that is being considered because of all the issues that have been raised, not least in the Chamber this afternoon.

Toby Perkins: We all know that when probation services do good work most people do not find out about it. On the odd occasions when things go wrong, however, the entire world is made aware. When I visited Derbyshire probation service I was blown away by the commitment, imagination and bravery of our probation officers, and that is why they command such respect across both this House and the country. These changes appear to be lacking in evidence base. They fly in the face of all expert opinion and are so dangerously misguided that they are very worrying indeed.
	The fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) had to initiate this debate to allow the House to discuss these changes is a matter of shame for the Government. That the other place had to table an amendment to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill to prevent the Government from making changes to the structure of the probation service until it was debated by this House, and that the Justice Secretary failed to bring that Bill back to us, speaks volumes about his political cowardice and the lack of support that the reforms command.
	The Secretary of State tells us that we should trust him because he believes his proposals are right. His approach seems to be this: we have a problem—reoffending rates—and we need a policy; this is a policy, therefore it is right. He has not explained in any way why his intention to extend services to offenders sentenced to less than 12 months must coincide with the creation of a load of new companies and a privatisation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting asked, why can we not have the extension of those services—it is already happening in some cases—within the realms of the current successful probation service?
	If the Secretary of State has confidence that wholesale privatisation is right—it is privatisation not just of probation provision, but of commissioning the services—why did he not let the pilots run their course? Why cancel the pilots and then embark on the policy? If that was because he has an unblemished track record and a Midas touch, Opposition Members might be a little less nervous. However, as my right hon. Friend made clear, the Secretary of State was responsible for the shambolic Work programme, under which people were better off if they were not on it. He was also the man at the heart of defending the operation of the work capability assessments when dead people were found to be fit to work. One would have hoped that, with a track record like that, he would show a little caution before ripping up a service on which so many people depend.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made a wonderful speech and asked why the time scale was so urgent. However, he missed the point. The Secretary of State is clear that the Conservatives are on their way out and that he has to introduce his proposals before he is out of power, when he will not have the chance. He is rushing through this ideological and dangerous move before he is thrown out of office, as he so thoroughly deserves to be.
	The probation service has a limited budget that has to stretch a long way, but it is performing. Every single service is ranked as good or outstanding. Its success is built on partnership working with local authorities, the police, prisons and other services. Many people are worried about that partnership working. The probation service operates as a seamless whole. As we split the service in two, the services will not have the partnership aspect that is so important to its success. The Women’s Work programme in Derbyshire brings together all women who have been in prison, regardless of their sentence. That is exactly the kind of specialist work that will be under threat when the service is split in two.
	The implementation of the integrated offender management programme involves collaboration with the police in working with offenders who are at a high risk of reoffending. That often means burglars, thieves and serial perpetrators of acquisitive crime, but not the people who are considered to be at a high risk of causing harm—the sort of people about whom the entire community breathes a sigh of relief when they are banged up. They are capable of creating a spike or a rut in local crime figures depending whether or not they are inside. Those people—walking crime machines—are the sort who are likely to fall through the net because of the changes being introduced.
	The changes are dangerous and could create a huge problem. The Secretary of State has said that his proposals are not about giving probation to big companies, but I bet we will see the big companies getting all the services. The idea that the voluntary sector will pick them up is a mirage. The Secretary of State is involved in a dangerous experiment and has a track record of failure. He should stop listening to the voices in his head that are telling him he is right. Instead, he should listen to the wide body of opinion telling him that he is getting this wrong, and protect our probation services now.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I have heard empty rhetoric from Opposition Members before, but this afternoon it is particularly poor. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) tried to position the debate as a public versus private one. The entirety of my career before becoming an MP was in the public sector. The ethos of public service flows through my veins. We are talking about having effective vehicles to deliver our policy objectives. Whether delivery is public or private is not important; the important thing is that we achieve the outcomes we intend. That is why the instinctive opposition to the proposals from Labour Members is disappointing. As all hon. Members recognise, the rate of reoffending remains stubbornly high, notwithstanding the efforts of Governments of all colours. Unless we show some imagination in tackling that, we will not win the fight against crime and we will continue to fail people who are trapped in the cycle of reoffending. I welcome the initiative and imagination shown by the Government. As we have heard, the National Audit Office has estimated that the cost of crime committed by offenders released from short prison sentences is up to £10 billion. For the sake of those offenders, their potential victims and the economy, we must not allow that to continue.
	Let us focus on the outcome we are trying to achieve, not on the inputs or on maintaining a provider-led
	system that is failing to deliver. I was most motivated to speak in this debate by hearing the comments of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who desperately tried to pray in aid the Public Accounts Committee to back up his position. The role of the PAC is to assess proposals on the basis of value for money. It is getting increasingly tiresome to hear it being prayed in aid to attack Government policy, because that is not its role. We examine the effectiveness of the machine at delivering the policies.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the report by the PAC on contract management by the Ministry of Justice, and we never hold back on criticising poor contract management across the public sector. It is well known that Whitehall needs to learn a lot in that regard. One of the things that we did in our earlier report on the Work programme was praise the approach to that particular aspect of contract management, which was based on payment by results so that the private sector providers taking those contracts bore the risk. That is a principle that needs to be read across government, and it is an important principle for the proposals that we are talking about.
	I bow to no one in my admiration for the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and the way that she is extremely inventive at spinning our reports to give maximum comfort to the Labour party. It says a lot about the lack of talent on the Opposition Front Bench that she is their most effective weapon.
	As I have said, the risks will be borne by the providers. If they succeed in transforming the lives of people who are caught up in the cycle of reoffending, what is not to like? If they succeed, people are freed from the cycle of reoffending. If they do not, they do not get paid. What is wrong with that?

Mike Wood: I was delighted to hear about the nature of the blood flowing through the hon. Lady’s veins, but could she address the question of the percentages in the contracts? The latest figures suggest that private companies will get 90% of their money whether they succeed or not.

Jackie Doyle-Price: If that were the case, I would consider it exactly the kind of poor contract management that I have been talking about. The important point is that we pay for results. Equally, we should reward those companies that are helping the most difficult to assist.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is making some extremely good points, and I hope that the Opposition are listening carefully. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) keeps referring to private contracts, but the Lord Chancellor has confirmed twice today that probation trusts can bid for those contracts in conjunction with someone who can take the financial risk. Does she agree that the hon. Gentleman should stop slagging off the private sector?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. We have been talking about private versus public, but it is not like that. We are not just talking about the Sercos and the G4Ss. We want public servants to come together and create mutuals. We are most
	effective when we all work in partnership. The “us and them” culture perpetuated by the Opposition does nothing to improve outcomes for anyone, whether in jobs, tackling reoffending or anything else. This stale thinking has had its day. We are in the 21st century, not the 20th.
	Police and crime commissioners will have a massive role in bringing together successful partnerships to bid for contracts. I pay tribute to an imaginative approach in my constituency, spearheaded by the police and crime commissioner, working with the youth offending team. The team had to find a new home. One of our police stations had closed. The PCC brought together a partnership between the council and the youth offending team, which enabled the re-opening of the police station, with a front-facing desk, that also provided a secure working environment for the team and its clients. That is a great example of partnership working and of how police and crime commissioners can make a difference. I commend what the Government are doing on this agenda.

Ian Austin: I am grateful to you for calling me for the second time today, Mr Speaker, which I know is unusual.
	I recently had the privilege of visiting the Dudley office of the Staffordshire and west midlands probation trust. I was impressed with its work. It is currently the third best in England and Wales at reducing reoffending. Of 53,216 ex-offenders in the entire region, just 6.9% went on to reoffend, down 16% compared with 2007. Across all areas covered by West Midlands police, none have reoffending rates above 10%.
	That is excellent work, but it is not unusual. In July, the Government’s own report assessed all probation trusts as being either good or exceptional. Despite that, the Justice Secretary has criticised reoffending rates for prisoners serving less than 12 months, but the probation service will not be allowed to deal with those people. Despite all the evidence that the probation service is functioning well, the Government plan to hand 70% of its work to private companies.
	I support using private and voluntary sector expertise and investment where it works, and I believe that the principles of competition and contestability drive up the quality of public services and can reduce costs, but the Government are planning to invest in a completely untested payments-by-results model and do not have a clue if it will work. First, they have no evidence that it will work in practice. Nowhere else in the world uses a payment-by-results model, and the Justice Secretary cancelled pilot schemes in his first week on the job.
	Secondly, the Government have no clue how many low and medium-risk offenders will go to private companies. This is key to the Government’s plans, but parliamentary questions have revealed they have no idea how many of the 260,000 offenders handled by the probation service are low, medium or high risk. We need to remember that low risk does not mean no risk. Figures show that the majority of serious offences committed on probation are committed by low and medium-risk offenders. Those are the basics and they should be absolutely clear. Instead, the Government are intent on splitting the probation service, and introducing bureaucracy and delays that could lead to mistakes.
	Thirdly, the Government do not even know if the scheme will save money. They are investing in a completely unproven scheme, instead of tried and tested local probation services. That is not good enough when the cost of failure is more criminals committing crime on our streets. That is exactly why chairs of probation trusts told the Government yesterday that the plans will lead to
	“more preventable serious attacks and deaths”.
	The truth is that the probation service should be more integrated into the justice system, not less. The first way to do that is to ensure more cases are dealt with by the courts and, where community resolutions are used, probation officers should be involved. Community resolutions are being used more and more extensively: the cases never go to court and the perpetrators do not come into contact with the probation service. I heard about a case where an offender kidnapped his underage girlfriend at knifepoint and raped her repeatedly. He assaulted the girl so severely that she miscarried. Unbelievably, just four weeks before the attack he had been issued with a community resolution for underage sex with the same girl. In another case, the rape of another underage girl was dealt with by community resolution, and in other cases robbery, domestic violence and sexual assault were dealt with in the same way. These people should be going to court and the probation service should be working with them, because there is no other way of stopping criminals from offending again.
	Secondly, probation offices and courts need to work together at the local level. In Dudley, the Government are threatening to close our criminal court, which is in the same building as Dudley magistrates. Part of the reason why Dudley has one of the best probation teams in the country is that it too is based in the courts and works closely with them and uses their local knowledge.
	Thirdly, probation officers should work more closely with prisons. Investment in prisons without investment in rehabilitation is a false economy. There is normally a small probation team based in each prison charged with co-ordinating the sentence planning and the programmes that a prisoner should be on, in conjunction with external probation officers, but I am told it is not permitted to run offender programmes, which are ultimately the best way of reducing reoffending and rehabilitating offenders prior to release. I am told the team finds it almost impossible to work with prisoners in private prisons in Birmingham and Wolverhampton, because the companies that run them are paid to lock people up and have no incentive to do anything that might ensure they do not commit crimes when they are released.
	The Government know that their plans are a gamble—that is why they are trying to force them through quickly and quietly—but we cannot afford to gamble with probation. The cost could be more criminals on our streets and more victims of crime. The probation service is working—we have the evidence to prove it—and we should be investing in it, not selling it off. That is the way to reduce reoffending still further.

Natascha Engel: I will be brief, because I cannot disagree with anything already said from the Opposition Benches. We have heard the expert opinion of people who really know what they are talking about.
	No one thinks there is a silver bullet that will stop reoffending. If we think there is one answer, and that it is either in the private sector or the public sector, we will be looking for it for an awfully long time. As we all recognise, everyone in the House wants to reduce reoffending rates as far as possible, protect society and turn criminals into law-abiding citizens, not just for their own sake, but to save money for the public purse. The big question is: how do we do that? Most people, certainly in the Opposition, believe that the public sector, in the form of the probation trusts, has demonstrated an ability to innovate and make improvements. Certainly, that is the case in Derbyshire, and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). There has been some astonishing innovation and really fantastic improvements and results.

John Healey: And in South Yorkshire.

Natascha Engel: Yes, and in South Yorkshire. Obviously, I cover a lot of South Yorkshire as well.
	How can we best cut reoffending? We can talk about private, public, a mixture of both, about the involvement of charities and so on, but our big concern, and the concern of the chairs of the probation trusts, including in Derbyshire, is that these reforms are being so hurried—they are to be implemented in one year—that the safety of the public could be at risk. Opposition Members have talked about the amount of work, the staff and buildings and everything that needs to be transferred, and 12 months simply is not long enough, so will Ministers please consider pausing and piloting these changes properly? Why is that not possible?
	What would we lose that is working well at the moment? With any dramatic change, there will be things lost that work well. We need to protect those services that are working excellently, not throw them out with the bathwater.

Richard Drax: I wish to raise another point that I have got wind of. I understand that two organisations would be in the same location for two years, after which the private or public organisations—whichever they are—could go their separate ways? I do not know if the hon. Lady knows anything about that, but I would be grateful to hear from the Minister about it.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are very short of time.

Natascha Engel: I am going to finish on this point, Mr Speaker. I have a big concern about the organisations equipped to bid for these contracts. We are talking about G4S and Serco, which are the very organisations being investigated over serious allegations of fraud in their current MOJ contracts. Also, why are the probation trusts—not the probation officers—which are providing such a good service, unable to bid for these contracts? That could be a big improvement.
	I shall finish now and donate my remaining three minutes to the Minister so that he can answer the question from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I do not understand how the distinction between low, medium and high-risk offenders will work; I do not understand the co-location system; and I certainly do not understand how it will not be a disbenefit to someone who has just come out of prison to go from one probation officer to another as he moves between from being a low or medium-risk offender to a high-risk
	offender. If the Minister could explain, I would be very grateful—and there we are: two and a half minutes donated to him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Shorter speeches will be necessary if everyone is to get in. It is up to colleagues to decide whether to help one another.

Sarah Champion: Our probation service comprises 35 trusts, staffed by incredibly dedicated, hard-working probation officers, all of whom are extremely concerned about the Government’s proposals. The National Offender Management Service published a report in July this year that demonstrated that the quality of the service was either “good” or “exceptional” in every single probation trust. I am proud to say that the facilities in Rotherham won an award for excellence.
	Reoffending rates are not the only criterion for measuring the successes of the probation service. Victim feedback has been positive in 98% of cases. Targets for completions on domestic violence interventions, and for court report timeliness, have been exceeded, and completion targets were also met or exceeded on the vast majority of probation programmes. Moreover, the service has managed to achieve all this while making the considerable budgetary savings expected of it. Given that record, I find it astonishing that the Secretary of State is planning to scrap the trusts in a few months and to replace them with an entirely different system, most of which will be run by the private sector. In an echo of the disastrous Work programme, the Secretary of State intends to impose an untried, untested payment-by-results model on the probation service. These reforms are flawed, rushed and ill-conceived.
	I want to focus on three issues. First, the proposals will allow cherry-picking by the private sector and will lead to a downgrading of the quality of support that medium and low-risk offenders get. As the National Audit Office has put it, the proposals
	“could encourage providers to concentrate their efforts on the offenders least likely to reoffend and prevent them from working with the most prolific offenders”.
	Part of the success of the probation service in reducing reoffending has been its use of more targeted interventions. A good example is how interventions for women are handled. These work well because they are small, local and holistic; they look at each woman as an individual with her own problems and needs, rather than as just another offender. Under the proposals, this type of niche service is likely to be lost altogether as the links between large, prime contractors and smaller local providers either break down over time or do not emerge at all. Crucially, those tailored services are simply more expensive. The proposed changes mean that it will become the probation provider, rather than the court, that decides the activities the offender should undertake. Through commercial necessity, providers are likely to prioritise the cheapest solution, rather than the best.
	Secondly, let me turn to the issue of exactly what sort of company might tender to run the new community rehabilitation companies. In July this year, the Secretary of State announced that internal findings in his Department had revealed a
	“significant anomaly in the billing practices”
	of Serco and G4S. That anomaly amounted to tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being mis-spent. Those practices have rightly been referred to the Serious Fraud Office, and the Department has also arranged a further, more detailed, audit of the companies’ activities. The results of the SFO investigation are not expected for several months, but I understand that those firms have not been ruled out of the bidding process, and that the pre-qualification questionnaire deadline has been delayed to give them a chance to tender.
	Finally, I understand that senior staff in the probation trusts have been formally “reminded” that they have a duty to carry out the will of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, we learned this week that the chairs of the probation trusts of Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire had written to the Secretary of State warning of the dire consequences of rushing this reform through. We need to listen to the people who know and understand the service best. Those experts say that
	“performance is bound to be damaged and that public protection failures will inevitably increase”.
	They go on to say that the current timetable was
	“unrealistic and unreasonable...with serious implications for service delivery and therefore increases the risk to public”.
	In summary, the probation service of 35 trusts ain’t broke, and the privatisation should not be going ahead.

John McDonnell: Forget my speech; I just want to make a couple of points so that other Members can get in. I am the secretary of the justice unions parliamentary group, and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is its chair. Over the past eight years, that group has enabled us to work with probation officers, prison officers and police officers, as well as members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, to gain some understanding of what is happening in the service. To be frank, I did not vote for the previous Government’s legislation. I know that the intention was not for it to be used to roll out privatisation in this way, but I was worried that it would be.
	I went to a lecture at the weekend by Angela Davis, the 1960s radical who is now a university professor. She has done research into what is called in America the “prison industrial complex”, in which every prisoner under supervision is a profitable asset—someone that people can make a profit out of. I fear that that is where we are now going with this roll-out of privatisation. As others have said, we are talking about a 70% privatisation of this probation service, which is so successful at present and was about to welcome the roll-out of management of offenders with less than 12-month sentences and was rising to the challenge.
	We have looked at how privatisation of the justice system has worked. Perhaps we should reflect on Oakwood prison, where a report last week told us it was easier to get drugs than a bar of soap. Privatised companies have made profits in prisons by reducing wages by 23%. That is the prospect held out to probation officers—professionals who are committed and dedicated to their task. If these people are saying—they are front-line staff who know their job—that the public will be put at risk, for God’s sake let us start listening to them.
	Finally, let me send out this warning to Ministers. We have heard so much advice about the risk posed by this privatisation to my constituents and members of my community, so if Ministers go ahead irresponsibly without heeding those warnings, they will be held responsible for every member of the public who is harmed, hurt or murdered as a result of these ill-thought-out reforms. This is a warning from me: if any of my constituents are harmed, I will hold Ministers responsible and I will seek to ensure that none of them ever holds public office again.

Chris Evans: I shall keep my remarks short, as most of what I wanted to say has been covered in the debate. I have no problem with a private-public partnership or with businesses coming into partnership, although there has been criticism on both sides of the House when Government Departments do not follow business models. We can learn some things from the private sector, but when 35 probation trusts—deemed good or, in some cases, excellent in a National Audit Office report of July 2012—have won awards for the level of service they provide, what good can come from this change?
	I shall focus my comments on short-term sentences. Before this debate, I did some research and wrote an article about such sentences. I learned that 60% of people with short-term sentences who are not given a probation order are likely to reoffend within a year, while 20% will reoffend within three to four years. What does that say? It says that probation is pivotal to stopping reoffending.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said, there is no magic bullet to stop people reoffending. People are different. By privatising 70% of the probation service, we are turning people into statistics and into profits. Private companies will cherry-pick the best and leave the worst cases on the vine. I think we need to talk more about why the probation service has been so successful and why people have not been reoffending. It comes down to one thing. When I talk to probation officers, they tell me that everybody is different, everybody faces different circumstances and everybody has different needs. Probation officers get to know these people and develop a relationship with them. They understand the barriers and how to stop these people from getting back into a cycle of crime. The probation service has been very good at this, and we should support what it does.
	I mentioned some statistics about short-term sentences, which highlight the need for the probation service to get involved. We should be expanding the probation service rather than privatising it. We have heard that we must go with our gut instinct. That is what the Justice Secretary said. Well, let him go with his gut instinct, but the fact remains that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said earlier, this is a matter of life or death. It is up to the Government, but if they get this wrong, there is nothing they can do to apologise to the victims of crime.

Andrew McDonald: During my brief time serving on the Justice Committee, I have seen this Justice Secretary rolling out disaster after disaster
	under his stewardship. The outsourcing of translation cases resulted in whole cases being abandoned at huge cost to the Court Service and putting at risk the liberty of individual citizens. The Ministry of Justice was repeatedly warned that ALS—Applied Language Solutions—was incapable of delivering a contract of that size, but those warnings were ignored. Although Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service forbade front-line staff to talk to talk to the Justice Committee, the Committee’s investigation resulted in a declaration that the privatisation was not sustainable, even after the intervention of ALS’s parent company, Capita. The electronic-tagging debacle has now required the intervention of the Serious Fraud Office, yet G4S and Serco, which won those contracts, have not been banned from entering bids to run probation services.
	The problems do not stop there, however. The damning report of the private, G4S-run HMP Oakwood by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons demonstrates the great dangers of putting private profit above prisoner rehabilitation. Oakwood is an institution in which inmates have died because defibrillators were locked away, and where levels of violence and victimisation are high. The Minister has called Oakwood
	“an excellent model for the future of the Prison Service.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 114.]
	Well, we saw a snapshot of that future this week in the form of the sickening images from G4S-run Mangaung prison in South Africa—yet G4S will be able to bid to manage the rehabilitation, in our communities, of the very sex offender prisoners whom it did nothing to rehabilitate in Oakwood prison.
	There is an organisation that has been banned from bidding for these franchises, despite being superbly placed to do so. It has a dedicated, experienced staff, and it has over a century of proven results in this area. The latest independent reports have praised its competence, and it continues to work with charities and social investment organisations at every level. That organisation is the probation service, via the probation trusts. There is no greater indication that this is an ideological attack on the public sphere than the fact that none of the trusts can bid—not even my own local trust, Durham Tees Valley, which was rated as showing excellent performance. The 8,000 low and medium-risk offenders whom it supervises will now be transferred to private providers—unless, of course, those offenders become high-risk again, in which case the probation trust will have to pick up the pieces. The justification for forbidding probation trusts to bid for franchises is that it would risk public money because of the “payment by results” system. The Minister’s mechanism for improving standards bans the best practitioner right out of the gate.
	The Ministry of Justice simply does not have the skills to deal with private sector contracts of this magnitude. In evidence to the Justice Committee, its own permanent secretary, Dame Ursula Brennan, said that the lesson learnt from the previous contracting disasters was this:
	“When you have something really big and complicated, biting it off in bite-sized chunks is now thought to be a better way of going.”
	Why, then, is the Minister ignoring that very lesson, and proceeding with a radical, hurried, nationwide overhaul?
	Notwithstanding the calls for plurality, the current proposals would allow 21 probation trusts to be run by just five companies. Those organisations will have to
	have the financial reserves that will enable them to wait for results-based payments, and the depth to underwrite any potential losses. In other words, there will be the same old cartel consisting of Capita, Serco, A4e, MITIE and G4S.
	It is not the family silver that is being sold off in this instance; it is the foundations of the house. It is madness that the administration of justice—the basic purpose of the nation state—should be sold to the highest, or in this case the lowest, bidder. I urge the Secretary of State to look at the trail of calamities that this dogmatic pursuit of ideology over evidence has caused, and to reconsider before it is too late. With its latest proposal, the Ministry of Justice is not only endangering the public finances, but endangering the public.

Jenny Chapman: I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Chamber. It is a pity that he could not be here to listen to the heartfelt and sincere expressions of concern from Labour Members. We could have filled the time three times over, such is our anxiety about these proposals.
	We have heard excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House. This has been a welcome, if overdue, opportunity for us to debate the Government’s upheaval and sell-off of probation services. It is a pity that the Government themselves do not welcome the House’s scrutiny of their proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) described that as shameful.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for Islwyn (Chris Evans), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) presented clear arguments, and expressed deep concern about the Government’s proposals. The lack of evidence and the abundance of haste mean that this initiative has “blunder” written all over it. These plans will see the majority of probation provision handed out to large companies with no experience of probation. They will see offender supervision divided artificially by risk category, in spite of the fact that risk regularly shifts, and the introduction of an entirely untested payment-by-results model. We are told it will be effective, but they cannot tell us how effective, and we are promised it will make us savings, but they cannot tell us, even roughly, how much will be saved. They cannot tell us the cost, and they cannot tell us any of the efficiency savings they hope to make.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) summed it up extremely well. He pointed out the complete absence of costings and called the plans flawed. Few Members are held in as high esteem as the right hon. Gentleman on these issues.
	So far, the public have been offered a personal testimony from the Justice Secretary that he thinks the policy will work, but that assurance comes without evidence as the Government have not seen fit to test its effectiveness. Probation is a front-line service that deals with public safety, and it is not good enough for the Secretary of State just to “believe” his proposals are right. We are not arguing for the status quo and, where we can, we
	have been very clear about our support for the Government on these issues, but untested, uncosted and dangerous upheaval is not the same thing as effective reform, and this motion calls for the model to be piloted and evaluated so that only the good practice gets rolled out.
	Pilots that were in place and ready to begin in two trust areas were instead cancelled by the Secretary of State. That scrapped any opportunity to test or improve the model, learn from mistakes on a small scale, and get it right. Instead, inevitable teething problems, inexperienced providers, failures in communication and glitches in the untested IT systems will have to be contended with all at once on a national scale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) urged caution. He said risks had not been thought through, and he is absolutely right.
	The Government keep referring to the Doncaster and Peterborough pilots. They are prison pilots and are therefore not comparable, nor are they intended to pilot changes for probation, plus, although both pilots showed some reasons for cautious optimism, they missed their targets—which is why it is helpful that they are pilots. The people working on those pilots say they have learned from their mistakes along the way, and of course they have; that is what pilots are for.
	In the same week that universal credit is having to be rolled out far more slowly than planned due to serious management and IT difficulties, the Secretary of State for Justice is refusing to learn from the experience of his colleagues. Not only that, but he is failing to learn from the mistakes of his own Department. After the “inglorious saga”, as it was christened by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), of the Ministry of Justice’s language services contract, the National Audit Office recommended that the Ministry should
	“implement future contracts so as to minimise transitional problems, for example through piloting and rolling-out new systems gradually”.
	That is good advice.
	By failing to test, evaluate or improve the model, Ministers are failing to manage effectively the risks that come with their plans. They will not even admit to them and publish the risk register. Our most serious concern is risk management and the fragmentation of the supervision of dangerous offenders. As we have heard from Members—on both sides of the House, to be fair—risk is not static. One in four offenders change their risk category during their order, and they do not always go from low to medium to high; they shift around far more dynamically than that. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) observed in his excellent speech, the nub of the matter is that the Government are introducing a dangerous layer of bureaucracy where an offender, while at their most volatile, will be passed between organisations. There is a serious risk—if this is not inevitable—of information being lost and vital warning signs being missed through this unnecessary divide, yet the Government have failed to pilot it, and check what sort of delays might be caused and how quickly information can be reliably passed on.
	The Government have failed to provide any evidence for the benefits of this upheaval, have failed to admit to the inherent risks and publish the risk register, and have failed to provide a realistic or responsible timetable in which to operate. The chairs of three probation trusts
	have written to the Secretary State this week to ask him to delay his rushed timetable, which is risky, unreasonable and, they say, “unrealistic”. Apparently, those managing the changes do not “just believe” that everything is going to turn out all right. By forcing through a timetable that his own Department has deemed “aggressive”, the Secretary of State, who is having a friendly chat with his colleagues rather than listening, appears to be showing more concern for being a champion of change—any change, it seems—than for safe service delivery.
	Serious concerns have been expressed, and not only in the Chamber today, about the Ministry of Justice’s capacity to ably procure and contract quality services. The language services procurement process was described as “shambolic” by the Select Committee on Justice, and the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Department was not an “intelligent customer”. The Justice Committee also found that the Ministry’s naivety in contracting was matched by its “indulgence towards underperformance” after the contracts came into operation. In the past two years, we have had: Jajo the rabbit signed up to be a court interpreter; charges for tagging dead inmates; and a new contracted prison in which it is easier to get drugs than soap. When is the Secretary of State going to recognise the need to hit the brakes, build skills and capacity in his Department, and improve on past failures?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) summed it up brilliantly. He said, and was backed up by interventions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), that the Government should trust the skills, experience and expertise of high-performing trusts, which are hungry to take responsibility for short-term prisoners. What a shame that the Secretary of State puts more faith in his inner belief than in evidence and experience.

Jeremy Wright: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and apologise to some for the fact that I will not be able to deal in detail with what they have said. In particular, I should apologise to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), because she kindly donated two minutes of her time but some of her Labour colleagues have stolen it back. I am sorry about that, but I will do my best to answer what has been said.
	There is no contradiction between two things that have been said in this debate. The first is that good work is being done up and down the country by probation officers. The second is that there is a need for change. I accept that a good deal of good work is being done by probation officers, but they, too, would say that we are simply not doing well enough on reoffending rates, which are far too high; half of those released from custody are reoffending within 12 months, despite our spending 70% more on probation over the past 10 years.
	There are two key advantages in what the Government propose to do. The first is that we bring innovation and good new ideas into the management of offenders. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned good voluntary sector organisations that do exactly that sort of work. We want to see them do more,
	and it is important to bring them more into rehabilitation work—our reforms will do that. That point was made by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
	The second huge advantage to what we are proposing is that we bring into the ambit of rehabilitation those offenders who at the moment have very little or no rehabilitation—those who receive sentences of 12 months or less. I detected very little disagreement across the House about that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) summed up the case for doing that passionately and well; we have overlooked those people and we should not do so because it is not in our interests to do so, as those are the offenders with the highest rates of reoffending and it is very important that we deal with them. It is also important that we deal effectively with support through the gate, so that people do not reach the cliff edge that he so well described.
	The question, surely, for Labour Members, not least those on the Front Bench, is: if they do not like our way of doing those things, which they agree are worth while, what is their way? I heard not a word of an alternative solution to the problems they accurately describe, except of course that the probation trusts should do it all themselves.
	Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) suggested that we should simply ask the probation trusts to do the work. I was rather surprised to hear that from an ex-Treasury Minister, because it would have an additional cost. I suspect that had I gone to him as a Treasury Minister—he was a very good one in his day—and said that I wanted the probation trusts to do more and wanted the money to pay for it, it is likely that he would have told me to ask the probation system to do better with the money it already received. That is exactly what we are proposing. We must make taxpayers’ money work better; that is hugely important.
	Some concerns have been expressed and we take them seriously. I want to pick up on as many as I can. The first concerns the principle of payment by results, which, it seems to me, is perfectly sensible. We want the taxpayer to pay for those things that work and not for those that do not. That is at the root of payment by results. I am confused, however, about the Opposition’s view: is it that we should not have payment by results or that we should have more? Both views seem to have been expressed.

Jenny Chapman: On the issue of payment by results, how much of the contract will be paid regardless of the results? Any more than 90% is not payment by results—it is just leaving a tip.

Jeremy Wright: As I have said to the hon. Lady before, this is a process that we are going through with those who will be involved in the system—

Sadiq Khan: You don’t know.

Jeremy Wright: I am confused—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Those on the Opposition Front Bench should listen to the answer to the question that was asked in an intervention after the Minister gave way. We will do things in an orderly manner.

Jeremy Wright: I am confused, Mr Deputy Speaker, about what I am being asked to do. Am I being asked to pay a bigger percentage by results or am I being asked not to do it at all? I do not think that the Opposition know.
	I have also been asked whether the system will involve contractors passing back difficult cases. That will not happen for two reasons. First, the decision on whether an offender has become a high-risk offender will be taken by the national probation service—that means public sector probation officers—not the private sector. Secondly, if such a thing were to happen, the individual offender would stay within the cohort for the provider, so there would be no financial incentive to pass them back.
	Another concern was whether the cheapest bidder would win and whether quality would not matter. That would absolutely not be the case. We will assess the bids not just on price but on the quality offering. That will include, incidentally, bidders’ ability to work in the partnerships that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) rightly described as important, whether through integrated offender management or other less formal arrangements.
	I have been asked why probation trusts cannot bid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained that we do not see how a public sector body can bid for a payment-by-results contract. That does not mean, however, that people who work in probation trusts now cannot bid for work as part of a mutual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys suggested. We want to see that happen.
	There are two major concerns, are there not? First, the Opposition say we are doing this too fast, but I make no apologies whatever for acting quickly in this matter. As long as we wait, new victims will be created by those who reoffend. We can do something about that and we should. Secondly, the Opposition say that the decision is ideological. Let me tell the House what is ideological: saying, “It doesn’t matter how good your ideas are or how effective they’ll be. If you come from the private sector, we’re not interested.” That is the Opposition’s view; that is ideology if ever I saw it. We believe that what works is what should be done. That is what we propose and that is what our reforms have suggested. There is no alternative from the Opposition. I urge the House to reject this empty motion and support the amendment.
	Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:

Ayes 223, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 278, Noes 218.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House applauds the work already carried out by probation trusts and other agencies to turn offenders away from crime; and welcomes the Government’s proposals to build on that work to further reduce re-offending by extending support after release to offenders given short custodial sentences, introducing an unprecedented nationwide through-the-prison-gate resettlement service so that offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community, harnessing the skills and experience of trained professionals and the innovation and versatility of voluntary and private sector providers to support the rehabilitation of low and medium risk offenders and creating a new National Probation Service that will work to protect the public and will directly manage those offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public.

PETITION
	  
	Sainsbury’s Development in Rushey Mead (Leicester)

Keith Vaz: This weekend in Leicester it will be Diwali, but unfortunately the celebrations are going to be ruined—unlike the wonderful celebrations we have had in the House this afternoon—because of the Sainsbury’s development at the top of Melton road. That development has had a terribly detrimental effect on local residents, with traffic piling up for several miles and local residents having to stay up all night because of the works going on. I held a public meeting last Friday, and local residents wanted me to present a petition to Parliament today. It is very much hoped that Sainsbury’s will listen to this petition, so that the Diwali celebrations on Belgrave and Melton road can be successful.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Leicester East,
	Declares that the development plans by Sainsbury’s in Rushey Mead are having a negative impact on the daily lives of the Petitioners’ families.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to introduce legislation relating to major retail developments to allow local people to have a say on how the work is carried out and so that potential noise and traffic problems are considered and to provide compensation.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001260]

Rachael and Auden Slack

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

Nigel Mills: I am grateful for the chance to raise this important, if tragic, issue. I remember it well because the murder of Rachael and Auden Slack took place shortly after the general election, and I mentioned it in my maiden speech nearly three and a half years ago. I am not sure that it is a great commendation for our system that it has taken three and a half years to get to the inquest, and to have the chance to try to learn some of the lessons from the tragic death of three people.
	Rachael and Auden Slack were murdered on 2 June 2010 by Rachael’s ex-partner and the father of Auden. The gentleman concerned had been suffering from mental health issues for quite a long time, and there had been various reports about his behaviour to the police, local health services and mental health trust social services. Sadly, however, not enough action was taken, and on 2 June he stabbed his ex-partner and child and took his own life with the same knife. It was a truly awful incident, and probably one of the worst murder situations we can imagine, especially as Rachael was pregnant at the time. We lost three innocent lives because of what seemed to many people to be the failure of various parts of the system to provide the protection, prevention or indeed the health care needed, that could possibly have prevented it from happening.
	The reason for the debate tonight is that the inquest finally reported last week. The verdicts for Rachael and Auden were that they were unlawfully killed, and that, in part, their deaths were more than minimally contributed to by a failure to impress upon Rachael that she was at high risk of serious injury or homicide from her ex-partner. A further verdict on Auden’s death was that the police had failed to discuss with Rachael what steps could have been taken to address the risks to him.
	The case is one of far too many around the country in which domestic violence incidents are not taken as seriously as we might like, ending with tragic results. This tragedy resulted in the death of two people and an unborn baby. The purpose of the debate is to press the Government on what more we can do to change or improve the system to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.
	It is worth recounting some of the facts. As I have said, the police, the mental health trust, the general practitioner and others had been involved in the case. The facts in the week before the tragic incident are as follows. On 26 May, Rachael took her ex-partner to a police station after he refused to get out of her car. He was assessed by the mental health team but released because they believed he was no threat. Questions have been asked about whether those who did that assessment were fully aware of his mental health history, which was known to the same trust.

Lisa Nandy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone and the manner in which he is conducting the debate. As he knows, Andrew Cairns’s family live in my constituency. They are grieving for Rachael, for Auden, for Rachael’s unborn child and, of
	course, for Andrew. Mr Cairns’s family have told me of the lengthy battle fought by them and by Rachael to get him the help he needed as his mental health deteriorated over many years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that we learn the lessons from this tragic case? Four lives could have been saved had we done so earlier.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words. I agree entirely that there seems to have been a long failure to provide Andrew with the care he needed. We cannot be wise after the event. None of us can say that people must have known the incident would happen. However, perhaps they ought to have seen a pattern of escalation of his condition—perhaps it gave off more warning signs than were seen.
	On 28 May, in that tragic week, two days after Andrew was arrested and assessed, he phoned Rachael more than 20 times. He went round to see her and forced her to take him and the child out. While they were out at a park, he threatened to kill her and made various threats saying that she did not realise how dangerous he could be. That was reported to the police. Sadly, he was released on police bail with conditions not to approach Rachael, but no further action was taken.
	A neighbour reported further threats Andrew had made to take away Auden. There was some concern that the police did not take action following that report. At that point, the police concluded that Rachael was at high risk. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that they told Rachael how high their assessment of the risk was. That is what led to the coroner’s findings.
	On the day of the tragic incident, Mr Cairns visited his GP, who reported that Mr Cairns was anxious and agitated. Mr Cairns remarked to the GP that, “The next few days will be the most important of your career.” By the time Mr Cairns left the GP, he had apparently calmed down and was rational, but, clearly, even on the day, he had made a cry for help that sadly was not heeded. I am sure that, if any of the police, the mental health team, the GP or anybody else had thought that the tragedy would happen later that day, they would have taken action to prevent it. The question we need to ask is: what more could have been done to assess the risk properly and see whether there was a realistic risk of such a tragic event? No hon. Member wants anything like this tragedy to happen again.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that it is important that our Derbyshire police, whom we love and trust, have a specialist domestic violence unit that can look into incidents and give professional advice to people who do not necessarily deal with domestic violence day-to-day?

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and I entirely agree. One of the issues is ensuring that the police have the specialist knowledge and training to be able to handle domestic violence cases. The right answer has to be more specialist police officers, but because there are so many reports of domestic abuse, which police all over the county have to handle urgently, I am not sure that it is possible always to send out a specialist domestic violence officer to each of those incidents. It is perhaps a question of ensuring better training in general for police officers and then
	making sure that cases that look to be serious receive specialist follow-up as soon as possible to ensure that signs of escalating behaviour or real risk have not been missed by a perhaps less trained person. In general, I agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
	The coroner last week suggested that he would make some recommendations to the Home Office, and I am not sure whether the Minister has received those yet. One of those suggestions was for some kind of electronic document that would summarise the important details in the investigation that would be available to all the police officers involved in the case. Outside agencies might also have some input, such as the mental health teams, social services, the local health teams or anyone else deemed relevant. It is key to ensure the full and complete sharing of information between the various teams involved. If everyone who had ever dealt with this case had known the full history of the complaints by Rachael and Mr Cairns’s mental health issues, it might have shown the pattern of escalating behaviour. He might have been viewed as a much higher risk than was initially thought by most of the people involved.
	Another suggestion is that perhaps we could strengthen police bail conditions or introduce greater sanctions if they are breached. There is a question about what can be done by court bail and what can be done by the police, but it cannot inspire public confidence if someone is released on police bail with a condition that he cannot approach someone, but very little action appears to be taken if he approaches her soon after being given that bail condition.
	A public campaign, supported by 38 Degrees—not an organisation Conservative Members are always fans of—suggests a full public inquiry into how the whole system deals with domestic violence issues. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is carrying out a review, but as various police forces around the country have received strong criticism from the IPCC on how they have handled domestic violence cases in recent years, perhaps we need to go a step further than an IPCC review. A full public inquiry could look at all the agencies involved rather than just focusing on the police, which is not where all the issues lie. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether the Government are inclined to have a public inquiry on an issue as important as this. The statistics suggest that two or three women a week are killed in domestic violence incidents, and that is an awful situation for a country such as ours still to be in.
	It is not for us to reinvestigate this case. Reports are still required from the police and various other agencies, but my purpose today is to raise with the Home Office both the tragedy of this case and the points at which greater action could have been taken to protect Rachael—perhaps to give her greater security, or regrettably to advise her to flee her home to ensure that she was not at immediate risk—or to address Mr Cairns’s health needs, perhaps including sectioning him or giving him more intensive treatment than he was able to get. Is it fair that Rachael was never recorded as Mr Cairns’s carer so she never really got any information or support for the help that she was trying to give her ex-partner for his mental health condition?
	Having discussed this with Derbyshire police over the past three years, I am aware that they have reviewed their processes and have tried to make improvements.
	There are outstanding reports that may require further consideration, but they now have initiatives to work more closely with social services from the same base and to try to improve links with the mental health team. Perhaps the Minister can talk about initiatives he may have seen elsewhere that could be rolled out as best practice around the country. The closer the working relationships, the more immediate the contact and the sharing of information, all of which might make a positive outcome more likely. We all talk about greater partnership working and sharing, but people work in silos and if there are not robust processes and good personal working relationships, trying to bridge three trusts or public bodies with different demands on their time is not always very effective. The question is: how can we improve and create best practice?
	It is tempting to think that Parliament could wave a magic wand, pass a new Bill or give new powers to stop this type of incident happening. I am not convinced that we have missed anything. The police have never said to me, “If only we had had this power we could have stopped it.” However, if the Minister has any suggestions about extra powers that the police need or could have used in this case that they were not aware of—I am not saying that that is the case—that would be helpful to the family. There is a feeling among the family, friends and the community that something went horribly wrong—that this was preventable and that somehow the system failed. If there is anything that can come out of an incident as tragic as this, it is that it never happens again.
	I again stress my condolences to the family and friends of Rachael and Auden for their tragic loss. I wish that the inquest had reported several months or years earlier. It is a pity that we have had to wait three and a half years before being able to have a public assessment to start to learn the lessons in the public domain. I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to make the inquest system much faster. I struggle to see why we have to put people through three and a half years of waiting before they can get the closure they need. I hope the Minister can provide some assurance that the Government take this issue very seriously—I know they do—and that we can expect further progress to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.

Norman Baker: It is the convention on these occasions to congratulate the hon. Member who secured the debate. I am not sure that “congratulate” is quite the right word in this case, but my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has been absolutely right to raise this matter. I welcome his contribution and the contributions of other hon. Members.
	I want to begin by offering my condolences to the family of Rachael Slack and her son Auden, and commend them for the courage and dignity they have shown at this difficult time. Domestic violence is an abhorrent crime, and one that the Government is committed to tackling with determination. This is a high priority for both me and the Home Secretary.
	The circumstances of Rachael and Auden’s deaths are tragic, and were eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend. The sad loss of such individuals is doubly distressing, because it is now clear from the coroner’s findings that their deaths could have been prevented. Such a case deserves our attention and we must ensure that lessons are learned, but we must do more than that: we must ensure that those lessons are acted on. I have noted with concern the findings of the coroner in this case, Richard Hunter, which were released on 22 October. I understand that he will be writing to the Home Secretary in due course. I would like to thank him for his thoroughness and diligence in such a difficult case.
	I was concerned to read that police failings “more than minimally” contributed to Rachael and Auden’s deaths. I have the utmost respect for the police and the vital work they do with professionalism and integrity day in, day out. However, it is alarming that in this case officers appear to have assessed Rachael as being in danger and yet failed to pass that message on to her—the one person who really needed to know. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is currently assessing all the evidence in this case following the inquest. It will then make a decision on the next steps. This case follows other reports from the IPCC that have flagged up police failings, such as the cases of Maria Stubbings, Clare Wood and Susan McGoldrick. I would like to reassure Parliament that I take such cases extremely seriously; such failings cannot be allowed to happen again.
	Since Rachael and Auden’s deaths in 2010, the Government have supported a series of reforms to the handling of domestic violence by the police. All police forces have measures in place to ensure officers have the knowledge and skills to deal effectively with cases of domestic violence. Specific training on domestic violence and abuse is included in the national police training curriculum. This training was updated this year to take account of the Government’s introduction of a new definition of domestic abuse. The new definition helps to prevent the escalation of abuse, which can end in tragedy, by dispelling the belief that domestic abuse begins and ends with violence. It places coercive control at the centre of determining whether abuse is taking place.
	Perhaps most significantly, since April 2011 the Government has placed homicide reviews on a statutory footing. Now every local report into a domestic homicide is reviewed and quality assured by a panel of independent and Home Office experts. A community safety partnership in Derbyshire is among those to have completed a domestic homicide review that has been quality assured by the independent panel. Each review has resulted in a tailored action plan that must be delivered by the area in question to make sure we learn from these individual tragedies. I am also happy to confirm that the Home Office will be issuing a document collating the lessons learned from these reviews into a national action plan.
	My hon. Friend asked about specialist teams. Of course, that is a matter for each individual police force to decide, but it is important—indeed essential—that police who attend domestic violence cases have the right training. The Home Office is working closely with the College of Policing to ensure that this occurs. The Home Secretary has also announced a force-wide review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into how the police deal with domestic violence.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned mental health, as did the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). The Home Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, on which I also sit, and I will raise this matter with the Department of Health to ensure we address any gaps in the system, including information sharing and risk assessment. Members are absolutely right to expect this to be joined up across Departments, and joined up locally as well.

Nigel Mills: Does the Minister also agree that when assessing domestic violence cases, it is important to bear in mind the risk to the children as well? It is not always just a case of the woman or man; we need to look at the risk faced by the children, but in this case I am not sure that that was done as thoroughly as it ought to have been.

Norman Baker: We will see what the coroner writes to the Home Secretary, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that in any situation of suspected domestic abuse, it is right that children’s services are engaged, if there are children present. Sometimes, if there is domestic abuse of a partner, there can also be domestic abuse against children. It does not always follow, but sometimes it does, and we ought to ensure that it is covered in any assessment.
	This Government has ring-fenced nearly £40 million for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services. Facilities funded with this money include 144 independent domestic violence advisers, who help victims of domestic violence get their voices heard, and 54 multi-agency risk assessment co-ordinators, who protect the interests of those such as Rachael who are most at risk. Up to 60% of abuse victims report no further violence following intervention by independent advisers.
	This national funding operates in tandem with local initiatives, and I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Derbyshire county council on the support it is now offering, which includes the Derbyshire domestic abuse helpline, to those at risk of domestic abuse. I encourage all local authorities to remember the importance of such initiatives when making difficult decisions about spending and delivering more for less.
	But we can, should and will do more nationally to reach out to those caught in cycles of abuse. That is why the Home Office has piloted two new initiatives designed to empower victims and stop domestic abuse in its tracks. This comes to the point my hon. Friend made about what more can be done. The first of these pilots is named after another young victim, Clare Wood, who was tragically murdered by her former partner in Salford in 2009. Known as Clare’s law, the domestic violence disclosure scheme is a system where anyone can seek disclosure of a partner’s violent past. Those with the legal right to know are provided with information that could well save lives, empowering them to make an informed choice about their futures.
	Our second pilot scheme creates a new process to protect victims in the immediate aftermath of domestic abuse. Domestic violence protection orders have the power to prevent a perpetrator of domestic abuse from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days. This offers both the victim and the perpetrator the chance to reflect on the incident. In the case of the victim, it provides an opportunity to determine the best course of
	action to end a cycle of abuse, as well as providing immediate relief and protection. We are currently carrying out an evaluation of both the pilots, and we expect to be able to announce plans for their future soon.
	There is no room for complacency, however. It is because of cases such as Rachael’s that the Home Secretary has commissioned HMIC to review police handling of domestic violence and abuse. The inspection is under way and I look forward to receiving the findings, probably in April. We will review the recommendations with care, and ensure that they are acted on as we strive for further improvements in this area.
	The crime figures for England and Wales show that the levels of domestic abuse experienced in the past year are lower than they were in 2004-05, and that the conviction rates for violence against women and girls are higher than before, but hon. Members have rightly expressed concern at the reduction in domestic violence referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police at the end of last year. The Home Office has held a round-table with the Director of Public Prosecutions and national policing leads to understand the cause of this downward trend, and the Attorney-General has issued a six-point plan to address this. We will continue to work on delivering against that plan in the coming weeks.

Lisa Nandy: I appreciate that, as a Home Office Minister, the hon. Gentleman is focused on the important lessons of this tragic case for the police and the Home Office, but I really do not want us to lose sight of the fact that Mr Cairns had been extremely unwell over a number of years, and that concerns had been raised repeatedly by Rachael and by Mr Cairns’s wider family. I would be grateful if the Minister could pass on the concerns about the care that Mr Cairns received, and about the failure to act on the warning signs, to his colleagues in the Home Office, so that those issues can also be addressed.

Norman Baker: That is a valid point. As I mentioned a moment ago, we need a joined-up approach not only in Government but at local level. I have undertaken to ensure that the Department of Health is made aware of the particular aspects of the scheme, so that it can work with us to plug any gaps that are identified.
	The point was also made about delays relating to the coroner. I agree that that process took a long time, and ideally there would not be such a long wait. We want to see justice being completed quickly, and the delays were obviously painful for those who wanted closure. I would be happy to raise that matter with the relevant Justice Minister to see what can be done, and I will pass those comments on.
	We have also founded the College of Policing, and announced its role in providing professional standards for policing and helping police officers and staff to meet those standards throughout their careers. It will be the college’s mission to ensure that officers and staff understand and comply with the highest ethical standards. We hope that this will drive up standards in the police generally.
	Domestic violence is a crime, and the worst possible violation of trust in human relationships. Deaths such as those of Rachael and Auden rightly cause shock and outrage, but we must also ensure that action is taken to prevent a similar thing from happening again and to
	secure justice for those who have lost their lives. I will be carefully reviewing the actions that we have taken over the past three years against the coroner’s findings in this case, to ensure that we do all we can to prevent appalling tragedies such as these from happening again because of the same failings.
	Through our violence against women and girls action plan, the coalition Government has made significant strides towards a better reality for victims of domestic abuse, but we know that there is still much to do. Tomorrow, I shall raise my concerns on domestic abuse
	at a team meeting of all chief constables, and in the coming weeks I will be meeting representatives of women’s groups. I look forward to discussing our plans with them and listening to what they have to say about this matter. It is vital that we respond to cases such as Rachael’s to ensure that those who are vulnerable to the worst crimes are protected. I look forward to updating Parliament on our continued progress in tackling domestic violence in coming months.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

enterprise

That the draft Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Designation of the UK Green Investment Bank) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 290, Noes 22.

Question accordingly agreed to.